I think you said the same thing I did... just differently.
Technicals always trump psych after a certain amount of time. People just can't stay psyched about a stock if the technicals keep proving them wrong. Eventually they run.
Apple slipped into its high p/e like it was an old pair of slippers and continued to increase valuation and the p/e went down.
Amazon's slippers are on the wrong feet and, yes, it will eventually crash if it doesn't improve its bottom line.
I think you mean Fundamentals will eventually trump techincals/psychology. To my way of thinking, Technicals = psychology since they don't care about fundamentals but instead rely on the crowd. They are chart watchers.
If I'm wrong, pardon me. I invest like Peter Lynch. Earnings growth, in the long run, will determine stock price. Pick something good and stick with it.
not a chance, the forecast is just window dressing for the holiday season. apple will have a tough time stay above 500b market cap in january. steve jobs is dead so is innovation in apple.
Speaking of which, I wonder when the next major correction will be.
Nobody can tell. But we also don't know exactly what a correction means. Is it 1%, 2%, 5%, 10% or more? The problem is that we don't know how far something will drop until it gets past the low, and begins the rise again.
As far as major correction goes, that doesn't ususlly happen without a recession.
I think you mean Fundamentals will eventually trump techincals/psychology. To my way of thinking, Technicals = psychology since they don't care about fundamentals but instead rely on the crowd. They are chart watchers.
If I'm wrong, pardon me. I invest like Peter Lynch. Earnings growth, in the long run, will determine stock price. Pick something good and stick with it.
Speaking of which, I wonder when the next major correction will be.
Nobody can tell. But we also don't know exactly what a correction means. Is it 1%, 2%, 5%, 10% or more? The problem is that we don't know how far something will drop until it gets past the low, and begins the rise again.
As far as major correction goes, that doesn't ususlly happen without a recession.
Could I have been any clearer?
Major correction; I swear you don't read posts properly.
I think you mean Fundamentals will eventually trump techincals/psychology. To my way of thinking, Technicals = psychology since they don't care about fundamentals but instead rely on the crowd. They are chart watchers.
If I'm wrong, pardon me. I invest like Peter Lynch. Earnings growth, in the long run, will determine stock price. Pick something good and stick with it.
The technicals are the fundamentals. We can quibble a bit over this, but it's pretty much equivalent.
Major correction; I swear you don't read posts properly.
I swear you have a problem with English. Or did you black out before you read the entire post? Or was there too much information for you to absorb, so you couldn't get to the bottom of it?
What did I say about major corrections? Do you even know?
Perhaps you should read the post again, but slowly. I know that three lines is a bit much for you to read at once, but you can do it if you work at it.
As per the article: In a nutshell, fundamental analysis aims to determine intrinsic value by looking at the strength of the business, a financial analysis and the operating environment including macroeconomic events. Technical analysis analyzes past market performance by looking at the chart activity of price movements, volume, moving averages and the statistics of various outcomes.
Major correction; I swear you don't read posts properly.
I swear you have a problem with English. Or did you black out before you read the entire post? Or was there too much information for you to absorb, so you couldn't get to the bottom of it?
What did I say about major corrections? Do you even know?
Perhaps you should read the post again, but slowly. I know that three lines is a bit much for you to read at once, but you can do it if you work at it.
I’ll resist rising to your juvenile language.
I mused on when a major correction would happen. You then replied by speculating how to define a correction, as to whether it was 1%, 2%, 5%, 10% or more. You appeared not to be responding to my post, as I had talked about a major correction only, which by definition would be far bigger than any of those percentages. I was responding to your reference of the recession of 2007, so it was clear that I was talking about a 'broad market correction', as sog35 picked up on shortly afterwards. You then referred to a major correction; it appeared that you had misread my post, but then realised I was talking about a major correction, so put in a sentence to correct your earlier sentences.
As per the article: In a nutshell, fundamental analysis aims to determine intrinsic value by looking at the strength of the business, a financial analysis and the operating environment including macroeconomic events. Technical analysis analyzes past market performance by looking at the chart activity of price movements, volume, moving averages and the statistics of various outcomes.
It's true, but they also look at sales numbers, margins, etc.
I mused on when a major correction would happen. You then replied by speculating how to define a correction, as to whether it was 1%, 2%, 5%, 10% or more. You appeared not to be responding to my post, as I had talked about a major correction only, which by definition would be far bigger than any of those percentages. I was responding to your reference of the recession of 2007, so it was clear that I was talking about a 'broad market correction', as sog35 picked up on shortly afterwards. You then referred to a major correction; it appeared that you had misread my post, but then realised I was talking about a major correction, so put in a sentence to correct your earlier sentences.
I didn't misread your post at all. The third line said what needed to be said about that. You seem to reject information. It's annoying when people insult me despite that I've answered their question properly. There have been a few people doing that lately, and I'm getting tired of it. I will begin to delete posts that do that.
So if you don't like "juvenile language" don't insult people with without cause.
As per the article: In a nutshell, fundamental analysis aims to determine intrinsic value by looking at the strength of the business, a financial analysis and the operating environment including macroeconomic events. Technical analysis analyzes past market performance by looking at the chart activity of price movements, volume, moving averages and the statistics of various outcomes.
I'm a swing trader as well as investor. I use technicals for trading... but I don't swing trade companies with lousy fundamentals.
I mused on when a major correction would happen. You then replied by speculating how to define a correction, as to whether it was 1%, 2%, 5%, 10% or more. You appeared not to be responding to my post, as I had talked about a major correction only, which by definition would be far bigger than any of those percentages. I was responding to your reference of the recession of 2007, so it was clear that I was talking about a 'broad market correction', as sog35 picked up on shortly afterwards. You then referred to a major correction; it appeared that you had misread my post, but then realised I was talking about a major correction, so put in a sentence to correct your earlier sentences.
I didn't misread your post at all. The third line said what needed to be said about that. You seem to reject information. It's annoying when people insult me despite that I've answered their question properly. There have been a few people doing that lately, and I'm getting tired of it. I will begin to delete posts that do that.
So if you don't like "juvenile language" don't insult people with without cause.
I don't know, that's a tough one.
Feh! Invested in Microsoft for a bit over a year during the early mid '90s. Did pretty well, but I thought it had gone as far as it would. I should have held for another three years or so. Oh well. Never invested in them again.
I started investing when I was 13. My parents allowed me to invest my Bar Mitzvah money, when I asked. They introduced me to their broker, and he told me to invest in maybe 8 stocks from different industries, so if 4 went down, 4 would go up, and I wouldn't lose any money. That's the strategy of current money managers.
I told him that that didn't seem like a good idea, because when 4 went up, 4 would go down, and I wouldn't make any money, and so why couldn't I just buy the 4 that went up? He told me that people couldn't do that. I disagreed. I was always very stubborn, though I know that people here will find that hard to believe.
So I started to invest by buying Digital Equipment Corp. This was in 1963. I did very well with that, because I found the stock was very cyclic. Almost on schedule, it would go from about $70 to $120 three months later, and then back down to $70. So I would buy at $80 and sell at $110. Easy peasy. I already was interested in the computer industry as a kid, and so I've always stuck with that. I almost never invest anywhere else. Stay with what you know.
I love your story. It shows an independent mindset. That might be the most important thing to have as an investor.
My views are strikingly similar. Why buy dud stocks if you have a good idea why a different company is going to do better? After correctly identifying a couple other great stocks (but lacking courage to buy) I finally decided to
buy AAPL after Jobs returned. The brokerage was aghast. I did sell a chunk a couple months later when they tried to scare the crap out of me, but recovered my senses thank goodness, and bought back as much as I could. I'd have more than twice what I have now if I hadn't sold any, but not complaining.
I figured Apple was going to be a huge redemption story. I didn't know what they would do to redeem themselves I just knew they would get there. Steve Jobs did not want to go down in history as making the dumbest move in corporate history. I remember when every business publication and school in the world used Apple as a Case History for their 'stupid' strategy of trying to manufacture hardware when all the Money was in selling the software like Windows. Also Jobs had been canned from his own company and that had to hurt. When he came back I could see the determination in him.
Always loved their computers more than the MS stuff we had at work. At home we always had Macs. I feel like I always 'got' Apple. I don't think the financial types on Wall Street do, it's a culture clash.
One thing that Apple has is a role as a discretionary pleasure that is both luxurious and affordable.
What do I mean by this? Well, the products are just cheap enough to allow people to buy them in hard times but yet get an experience of pleasure and luxury.
This means that even in economic downturns their products can be purchased in vast numbers.
This is not the case, e.g.: with B2B revenues from advertising for a company like Google.
This makes Apple more like a Utility than a tech stock, in the case of Apple the utility is 'pleasure' and the satisfaction of desire.
This is why you see people who are really pretty poor with iPhones rather than Android phones, the status value makes them go that bit further in their spending.
One thing that Apple has is a role as a discretionary pleasure that is both luxurious and affordable.
What do I mean by this? Well, the products are just cheap enough to allow people to buy them in hard times but yet get an experience of pleasure and luxury.
This means that even in economic downturns their products can be purchased in vast numbers.
This is not the case, e.g.: with B2B revenues from advertising for a company like Google.
This makes Apple more like a Utility than a tech stock, in the case of Apple the utility is 'pleasure' and the satisfaction of desire.
This is why you see people who are really pretty poor with iPhones rather than Android phones, the status value makes them go that bit further in their spending.
The interesting thing about Apple's "luxury" brand, is that's it not really luxury priced. Basically, Apple just doesn't compete in the cheaper categories. But otherwise, their products haven't been priced higher than competitors by very much, if at all.
So we look at Apple's iPhone. And it's priced the same as Samsung's competing models, and HTC's, and others.
Their computers aren't higher than competitors either, if we look at their higher end models. This has been pretty consistent.
But Apple products look, and feel, higher quality, because they usually are, even thougt they cost about the same.
Their products have been described as being "affordable luxury". Products that seem like luxury products, but really aren't. We're not going to see a Vertu priced iPhones from Apple. Though, occasionally, for charity, Apple may produce a rare, expensive model, as they do for the RED events we've seen.
Comments
I think you said the same thing I did... just differently.
Technicals always trump psych after a certain amount of time. People just can't stay psyched about a stock if the technicals keep proving them wrong. Eventually they run.
Apple slipped into its high p/e like it was an old pair of slippers and continued to increase valuation and the p/e went down.
Amazon's slippers are on the wrong feet and, yes, it will eventually crash if it doesn't improve its bottom line.
I think you mean Fundamentals will eventually trump techincals/psychology. To my way of thinking, Technicals = psychology since they don't care about fundamentals but instead rely on the crowd. They are chart watchers.
If I'm wrong, pardon me. I invest like Peter Lynch. Earnings growth, in the long run, will determine stock price. Pick something good and stick with it.
steve jobs is dead so is innovation in apple.
Nobody can tell. But we also don't know exactly what a correction means. Is it 1%, 2%, 5%, 10% or more? The problem is that we don't know how far something will drop until it gets past the low, and begins the rise again.
As far as major correction goes, that doesn't ususlly happen without a recession.
Speaking of which, I wonder when the next major correction will be.
If you could predict broad market corrections you would literally be the richest man on the planet
The last was around 2007/2008, wasn't it? The one before was about 2000/2001.
Time is getting twitchy.
I think you mean Fundamentals will eventually trump techincals/psychology. To my way of thinking, Technicals = psychology since they don't care about fundamentals but instead rely on the crowd. They are chart watchers.
If I'm wrong, pardon me. I invest like Peter Lynch. Earnings growth, in the long run, will determine stock price. Pick something good and stick with it.
Age hasn't been kind to me...
Of course... you are absolutely right.
Fundamentals is what I really meant.
Speaking of which, I wonder when the next major correction will be.
Nobody can tell. But we also don't know exactly what a correction means. Is it 1%, 2%, 5%, 10% or more? The problem is that we don't know how far something will drop until it gets past the low, and begins the rise again.
As far as major correction goes, that doesn't ususlly happen without a recession.
Could I have been any clearer?
Major correction; I swear you don't read posts properly.
The technicals are the fundamentals. We can quibble a bit over this, but it's pretty much equivalent.
I swear you have a problem with English. Or did you black out before you read the entire post? Or was there too much information for you to absorb, so you couldn't get to the bottom of it?
What did I say about major corrections? Do you even know?
Perhaps you should read the post again, but slowly. I know that three lines is a bit much for you to read at once, but you can do it if you work at it.
The technicals are the fundamentals. We can quibble a bit over this, but it's pretty much equivalent.
They are different approaches for analyzing companies. One comes from the financial statements and the other, charts.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/active-trading/101713/technical-vs-fundamental-investing-friends-or-foes.asp
As per the article: In a nutshell, fundamental analysis aims to determine intrinsic value by looking at the strength of the business, a financial analysis and the operating environment including macroeconomic events. Technical analysis analyzes past market performance by looking at the chart activity of price movements, volume, moving averages and the statistics of various outcomes.
Could I have been any clearer?
Major correction; I swear you don't read posts properly.
I swear you have a problem with English. Or did you black out before you read the entire post? Or was there too much information for you to absorb, so you couldn't get to the bottom of it?
What did I say about major corrections? Do you even know?
Perhaps you should read the post again, but slowly. I know that three lines is a bit much for you to read at once, but you can do it if you work at it.
I’ll resist rising to your juvenile language.
I mused on when a major correction would happen. You then replied by speculating how to define a correction, as to whether it was 1%, 2%, 5%, 10% or more. You appeared not to be responding to my post, as I had talked about a major correction only, which by definition would be far bigger than any of those percentages. I was responding to your reference of the recession of 2007, so it was clear that I was talking about a 'broad market correction', as sog35 picked up on shortly afterwards. You then referred to a major correction; it appeared that you had misread my post, but then realised I was talking about a major correction, so put in a sentence to correct your earlier sentences.
It's true, but they also look at sales numbers, margins, etc.
I didn't misread your post at all. The third line said what needed to be said about that. You seem to reject information. It's annoying when people insult me despite that I've answered their question properly. There have been a few people doing that lately, and I'm getting tired of it. I will begin to delete posts that do that.
So if you don't like "juvenile language" don't insult people with without cause.
They are different approaches for analyzing companies. One comes from the financial statements and the other, charts.
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/active-trading/101713/technical-vs-fundamental-investing-friends-or-foes.asp
As per the article: In a nutshell, fundamental analysis aims to determine intrinsic value by looking at the strength of the business, a financial analysis and the operating environment including macroeconomic events. Technical analysis analyzes past market performance by looking at the chart activity of price movements, volume, moving averages and the statistics of various outcomes.
I'm a swing trader as well as investor. I use technicals for trading... but I don't swing trade companies with lousy fundamentals.
I’ll resist rising to your juvenile language.
I mused on when a major correction would happen. You then replied by speculating how to define a correction, as to whether it was 1%, 2%, 5%, 10% or more. You appeared not to be responding to my post, as I had talked about a major correction only, which by definition would be far bigger than any of those percentages. I was responding to your reference of the recession of 2007, so it was clear that I was talking about a 'broad market correction', as sog35 picked up on shortly afterwards. You then referred to a major correction; it appeared that you had misread my post, but then realised I was talking about a major correction, so put in a sentence to correct your earlier sentences.
I didn't misread your post at all. The third line said what needed to be said about that. You seem to reject information. It's annoying when people insult me despite that I've answered their question properly. There have been a few people doing that lately, and I'm getting tired of it. I will begin to delete posts that do that.
So if you don't like "juvenile language" don't insult people with without cause.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
I love your story. It shows an independent mindset. That might be the most important thing to have as an investor.
My views are strikingly similar. Why buy dud stocks if you have a good idea why a different company is going to do better? After correctly identifying a couple other great stocks (but lacking courage to buy) I finally decided to
buy AAPL after Jobs returned. The brokerage was aghast. I did sell a chunk a couple months later when they tried to scare the crap out of me, but recovered my senses thank goodness, and bought back as much as I could. I'd have more than twice what I have now if I hadn't sold any, but not complaining.
I figured Apple was going to be a huge redemption story. I didn't know what they would do to redeem themselves I just knew they would get there. Steve Jobs did not want to go down in history as making the dumbest move in corporate history. I remember when every business publication and school in the world used Apple as a Case History for their 'stupid' strategy of trying to manufacture hardware when all the Money was in selling the software like Windows. Also Jobs had been canned from his own company and that had to hurt. When he came back I could see the determination in him.
Always loved their computers more than the MS stuff we had at work. At home we always had Macs. I feel like I always 'got' Apple. I don't think the financial types on Wall Street do, it's a culture clash.
What do I mean by this? Well, the products are just cheap enough to allow people to buy them in hard times but yet get an experience of pleasure and luxury.
This means that even in economic downturns their products can be purchased in vast numbers.
This is not the case, e.g.: with B2B revenues from advertising for a company like Google.
This makes Apple more like a Utility than a tech stock, in the case of Apple the utility is 'pleasure' and the satisfaction of desire.
This is why you see people who are really pretty poor with iPhones rather than Android phones, the status value makes them go that bit further in their spending.
The interesting thing about Apple's "luxury" brand, is that's it not really luxury priced. Basically, Apple just doesn't compete in the cheaper categories. But otherwise, their products haven't been priced higher than competitors by very much, if at all.
So we look at Apple's iPhone. And it's priced the same as Samsung's competing models, and HTC's, and others.
Their computers aren't higher than competitors either, if we look at their higher end models. This has been pretty consistent.
But Apple products look, and feel, higher quality, because they usually are, even thougt they cost about the same.
Their products have been described as being "affordable luxury". Products that seem like luxury products, but really aren't. We're not going to see a Vertu priced iPhones from Apple. Though, occasionally, for charity, Apple may produce a rare, expensive model, as they do for the RED events we've seen.