Still holding 700 shares that i intend to hold to at least $150
I'm curious why you've chosen to daytade AAPL rather than buy and hold? I daresay the day I choose to cash out I'll be in a far better position than the one you'll find yourself in, what with the higher taxes you'll pay, plus the massive chunks of capital you need to commit to realize a decent gain within a brief trading window.
I actually bought some short term options myself last week, after largely switching to a longer term investment profile. My take was that the stock will be at $150 by July, so it is pretty low risk. I would take a 10% gain in a week or hold out for 100% at expiration, not worrying about which outcome happens. Recent volatility relative to the broader market seems to validate the thinking of shorter-term mindset with Apple. It wasn't much money I put into it, but would be nice to see a little reward in the end.
The other indices have Apple simply because they are based on size. They aren't really an index. They just take the biggest companies in the order of their sales, or market capitalization, and list them. The DOW is different, as it's a selected group. Selected groups are always biased in several ways, and are generally less useful.
Who is using the Dow Jones to make financial decisions with relation to the overall US Economy? The S&P 500 is what people should be looking at.
Nobody. The DOW is an almost useless index. It means nothing. There are some DOW tracking funds for those who do believe it means something. But the idea of just using stock price is nuts.
In fairness, the S&P isn't "best and brightest" companies, and isnt a slam-dunk to invest in. The Dow creates a manageable list of companies for an individual investor to follow and weight as they see fit.
The distinction might not matter much for mutual funds, as charging 0.5-2.0% of assets held gives you the ability to have a lot of resources to evaluate 500-2,000 companies.
S&P is a better proxy for the state of broad economic growth, but as an investment benchmark it seems irrational.
Simple. I'm not comfortable holding $130,000 in a single stock for long stretches of time. I'm already maxed out with $90k in Apple stock.
I do day trade AAPL stock to take advantage of Wall Streets manipulation. But my core holding (about 700 shares) I don't buy and sell until I reach my long term goal. I have held my core holding of 700 shares since late 2012. With today's information my long term price target is $150. Of course things could change if the information changes. Last year my long term target was $120 but after the Dec earnings it was obvious that target was way too low.
I'll buy 100-400 shares of Apple stock for a day trade when I think the stock drops for pure stupid reasons or is far below what I consider market value. At this point in time I think anything below $128 is below market value. When the stock drops below that I quickly buy some shares. But I will not hold them long term because there is too much risk in holding so much of a single stock (in relation to my total portfolio). Once it moves up a dollar or two I sell right away.
I understand that I do pay a higher tax rate. But IMO that's better than the 2 alternatives:
1. Just hold the 700 shares and don't take advantage of price fluctuations.
2. Buy and hold 1000 shares and increase concentration risk
Should I assume that if you held 1,000 shares for a year you'd not be able to pay your living expenses? What about if your long term holdings fell by 10% or more?
Simple. I'm not comfortable holding $130,000 in a single stock for long stretches of time. I'm already maxed out with $90k in Apple stock.
I do day trade AAPL stock to take advantage of Wall Streets manipulation. But my core holding (about 700 shares) I don't buy and sell until I reach my long term goal. I have held my core holding of 700 shares since late 2012. With today's information my long term price target is $150. Of course things could change if the information changes. Last year my long term target was $120 but after the Dec earnings it was obvious that target was way too low.
I'll buy 100-400 shares of Apple stock for a day trade when I think the stock drops for pure stupid reasons or is far below what I consider market value. At this point in time I think anything below $128 is below market value. When the stock drops below that I quickly buy some shares. But I will not hold them long term because there is too much risk in holding so much of a single stock (in relation to my total portfolio). Once it moves up a dollar or two I sell right away.
I understand that I do pay a higher tax rate. But IMO that's better than the 2 alternatives:
1. Just hold the 700 shares and don't take advantage of price fluctuations.
2. Buy and hold 1000 shares and increase concentration risk
Trading to make $500 is going to get you hurt long term. If you are taking those risks, why not buy $70 or $100 calls (1/2017 expiration) instead? You cut your capital exposure in half, or give yourself the chance to double returns for the same capital, and only marginally higher risks.
(Taking my advice to extreme will also get you hurt, but losing 10% to commissions isn't helping yourself.)
...and most people are aware of how the government undercounts as they do not include those long-term unemployed, nor those who have dropped out the ranks of those seeking employment.
Some estimates of "actual" unemployment are as high as 23.2%.
I don't care about Google. The numbers they use aren't the official calculations the GAO has used for decades, and so are useless in giving us any meaningful relation to past employment numbers.
We all know that actual employment is always lower than the number presented, because there are people out of work who aren't looking for jobs. The official. U very don't include them. But even so, those numbers remain the same as a percentage during similar economic situations.
So the official numbers are still the best indicator of where employment is at. When we at the depths of the Bush recession, actual unemployments was also much higher than the official 10.5% he gifted us with, perhaps 18%.
No matter how your political philosophy want to look at this to make things seems worse than they are, it's vastly better than they were. Even during the crazy low unemployment years of the Clinton administration, which went under 4%, a number I'd ,Ike to remind you that economists from bothe the right and left think was below the sustainable minimum unemployment of 5%, actual unemployment, but the figures you want to use now, would have been slightly over 6%.
But those figures are not considered to be useful, and so aren't used, because they are too variable. No one really knows why people decide to not look for work. Some is because they think they can't find any. Some is because they will only work in the business they were previously employees in, and others will not work for less than they were previously paid. And then there are these who are older and decide to retire.
How do you figure those people into the unemployment figures? It's cinsidered to be impossible to do it reliably, which is why the GAO doesn't try. It's considered to be too unreliable.
So 5.5% means the same it has always meant, and should be taken in relation to numbers that have always been published, rather than using unreliable numbers published by organizations with axes to grind.
In fairness, the S&P isn't "best and brightest" companies, and isnt a slam-dunk to invest in. The Dow creates a manageable list of companies for an individual investor to follow and weight as they see fit.
The distinction might not matter much for mutual funds, as charging 0.5-2.0% of assets held gives you the ability to have a lot of resources to evaluate 500-2,000 companies.
S&P is a better proxy for the state of broad economic growth, but as an investment benchmark it seems irrational.
There is no "slam dunk" index. The S&P 500 has selection criteria, and a rational weighting scheme. Funds that follow the S&P 500 (or any other index) have very low fees; VFIAX has an expense ratio of 0.05%.
An index should mean something. The Dow is virtually meaningless. It's a random assortment of companies, whose stock price is combined in an arbitrary fashion, to create an arbitrary number.
Simple. I'm not comfortable holding $130,000 in a single stock for long stretches of time. I'm already maxed out with $90k in Apple stock.
I do day trade AAPL stock to take advantage of Wall Streets manipulation. But my core holding (about 700 shares) I don't buy and sell until I reach my long term goal. I have held my core holding of 700 shares since late 2012. With today's information my long term price target is $150. Of course things could change if the information changes. Last year my long term target was $120 but after the Dec earnings it was obvious that target was way too low.
I'll buy 100-400 shares of Apple stock for a day trade when I think the stock drops for pure stupid reasons or is far below what I consider market value. At this point in time I think anything below $128 is below market value. When the stock drops below that I quickly buy some shares. But I will not hold them long term because there is too much risk in holding so much of a single stock (in relation to my total portfolio). Once it moves up a dollar or two I sell right away.
I understand that I do pay a higher tax rate. But IMO that's better than the 2 alternatives:
1. Just hold the 700 shares and don't take advantage of price fluctuations.
2. Buy and hold 1000 shares and increase concentration risk
My investment strategy over the years has changed. I used to be a big trader thought the '90's. But I've shifted. I bought several thousand shares of Apple in mid 2004, and I've held on to them, buying smaller amounts a couple of times since then, mainly during the recession. The rest of my investments are shorter term. What began as less than 15% of my investments has now become almost 70%. I did fine elsewhere, but my Apple stock has grown by an unprecedented amount. I agree with Cramer; buy Apple stock, and hold it. Through the ups and downs, it will move up faster than the market over the longer run. And with the dividend, small as it is in percentage, it's a good amount per share.
In fairness, the S&P isn't "best and brightest" companies, and isnt a slam-dunk to invest in. The Dow creates a manageable list of companies for an individual investor to follow and weight as they see fit.
The distinction might not matter much for mutual funds, as charging 0.5-2.0% of assets held gives you the ability to have a lot of resources to evaluate 500-2,000 companies.
S&P is a better proxy for the state of broad economic growth, but as an investment benchmark it seems irrational.
Nobody said anything about investing. We're just talking about indexes. When you take the largest companies, you are doing nothing else. It's just numbers. I never invest in an index in any way, just individual stocks. I never invest in mutual funds either. The average mutual fund does about the same as the market. If you're dumb enough to pay for a managed fund, then you do more poorly than the market just because of the large fees charged.
If you can't figure out what companies to buy, then maybe a low cost fund might be ok, they average a 7% return over the years. Managed funds do about 5% because of the fees. But it's got to be a fund that's widely represented. Funds that specialize do poorly over time.
I don't care about Google. The numbers they use aren't the official calculations the GAO has used for decades, and so are useless in giving us any meaningful relation to past employment numbers.
We all know that actual employment is always lower than the number presented, because there are people out of work who aren't looking for jobs. The official. U very don't include them. But even so, those numbers remain the same as a percentage during similar economic situations.
So the official numbers are still the best indicator of where employment is at. When we at the depths of the Bush recession, actual unemployments was also much higher than the official 10.5% he gifted us with, perhaps 18%.
No matter how your political philosophy want to look at this to make things seems worse than they are, it's vastly better than they were. Even during the crazy low unemployment years of the Clinton administration, which went under 4%, a number I'd ,Ike to remind you that economists from bothe the right and left think was below the sustainable minimum unemployment of 5%, actual unemployment, but the figures you want to use now, would have been slightly over 6%.
But those figures are not considered to be useful, and so aren't used, because they are too variable. No one really knows why people decide to not look for work. Some is because they think they can't find any. Some is because they will only work in the business they were previously employees in, and others will not work for less than they were previously paid. And then there are these who are older and decide to retire.
How do you figure those people into the unemployment figures? It's cinsidered to be impossible to do it reliably, which is why the GAO doesn't try. It's considered to be too unreliable.
So 5.5% means the same it has always meant, and should be taken in relation to numbers that have always been published, rather than using unreliable numbers published by organizations with axes to grind.
What axe has the government's own Bureau of Labor Statistics to grind?
Still holding 700 shares that i intend to hold to at least $150
That trade is looking pretty smart now. I had my finger on the buy button, then decided to wait an extra day, as I made it mental note not to purchase anymore above $125. Ah well.
Nobody said anything about investing. We're just talking about indexes. When you take the largest companies, you are doing nothing else. It's just numbers. I never invest in an index in any way, just individual stocks. I never invest in mutual funds either. The average mutual fund does about the same as the market. If you're dumb enough to pay for a managed fund, then you do more poorly than the market just because of the large fees charged.
If you can't figure out what companies to buy, then maybe a low cost fund might be ok, they average a 7% return over the years. Managed funds do about 5% because of the fees. But it's got to be a fund that's widely represented. Funds that specialize do poorly over time.
I agree. Individual stocks versus funds. My portfolio is very heavily weighted with AAPL, but that is simply the effect of thousands of percentage points of growth versus my other holdings.
Should I assume that if you held 1,000 shares for a year you'd not be able to pay your living expenses? What about if your long term holdings fell by 10% or more?
Estimates have been that you need $1 million for retirement if you expect to live off interest or dividends. But that no longer true. It was, before the recession, that you could pull a good 6%, taxable, or 5% in triple taxfree munies, for a decent number, plus Social Security. But now, if you ca get 2%, you're doing well. So you have to pull capital down each year, which is a very difficult thing to do, as we really have no idea as to how long we'll be around. People actually spend their entire investment while they're still alive, and end up with nothing the last years.
1,000 shares of Apple looks good, but it's only worth about $130, rounding up a bit. $130 thousand is a very small number for a retirement investment. If you're deoending if dividends from that, it's only about $2,600 per year. A nice bonus, but not enough to make much of a difference. If you want to take a risk, you can invest that in Blackrock. Last I looked, they were offering over 9%. But it's very risky, and the stock doesn't mover the needle over time, so no increase there.
Estimates have been that you need $1 million for retirement if you expect to live off interest or dividends. But that no longer true. It was, before the recession, that you could pull a good 6%, taxable, or 5% in triple taxfree munies, for a decent number, plus Social Security. But now, if you ca get 2%, you're doing well. So you have to pull capital down each year, which is a very difficult thing to do, as we really have no idea as to how long we'll be around. People actually spend their entire investment while they're still alive, and end up with nothing the last years.
1,000 shares of Apple looks good, but it's only worth about $130, rounding up a bit. $130 thousand is a very small number for a retirement investment. If you're deoending if dividends from that, it's only about $2,600 per year. A nice bonus, but not enough to make much of a difference. If you want to take a risk, you can invest that in Blackrock. Last I looked, they were offering over 9%. But it's very risky, and the stock doesn't mover the needle over time, so no increase there.
Yesterday I heard the very alarming news that the average American has less than $100K saved for retirement. Many people have nothing saved. This is very disturbing and could lead to account confiscation and redistribution at some point, since the ill-prepared will be the majority of voters.
Who is using the Dow Jones to make financial decisions with relation to the overall US Economy? The S&P 500 is what people should be looking at.
For investment decisions, I think that would be correct unless one primarily invests in tech stocks, in which case Nasdaq would be better. But for the overall health of the U.S. economy, I really think all three exchanges need to be evaluated.
Over the last few years, the S&P has outperformed the Dow. At the end of 2012, the Dow was up 7.3% for the year, but the S&P was up 13.4%. In 2013, it was 26.5% for the Dow and 29.6% for the S&P. In 2014, it was 7.5% for the Dow and 11.4% for the S&P. So far in 2015 (as of 2/28), it's 1.7% for the Dow and 2.2% for the S&P.
What axe has the government's own Bureau of Labor Statistics to grind?
This is under the control of the GAO, which has stubbornly resisted the overture of both the right and the left over the decades. Fortunately, while we bemoan bureaucracies as being unresponsive, the area in which these are, unresponsiveness is a major virtue. They refuse to work, and release numbers that are politically biased. They are a back room organization. Both the right wingers and the left wingers hate this. They want to turn it to their own use, but have failed. It's why these no Bears are considered to be the most reliBle numbers any government gives out. So much so, and I'm talking about everything they do, that bothe the left and the right quote them for their own purposes, and other governments use them as well, because they also do worldwide statistical work that is considered to by much more unbiased than their own numbers which are very politically motivated.
I wouldn't argue them, even thougI I'm not always happy to see them myself.
For investment decisions, I think that would be correct unless one primarily invests in tech stocks, in which case Nasdaq would be better. But for the overall health of the U.S. economy, I really think all three exchanges need to be evaluated.
For a better view of the overall health of the US economy, one needs to look at the Russell 2000 which represents small cap stocks. The DJIA components are all in the S&P 500; the latter is a better barometer of big business. I ignore the Dow myself.
As someone who often invests in the technology sector, I do pay attention to the Nasdaq.
This change shouldn't affect the value the stock but when you consider the psychological effect of moving to the DOW I would think it will. Is there any data on how others faired in the months after moving to the DOW from the NASDAQ? I'd surely love to see a maintainable $1T market cap for AAPL.
Comments
I actually bought some short term options myself last week, after largely switching to a longer term investment profile. My take was that the stock will be at $150 by July, so it is pretty low risk. I would take a 10% gain in a week or hold out for 100% at expiration, not worrying about which outcome happens. Recent volatility relative to the broader market seems to validate the thinking of shorter-term mindset with Apple. It wasn't much money I put into it, but would be nice to see a little reward in the end.
The other indices have Apple simply because they are based on size. They aren't really an index. They just take the biggest companies in the order of their sales, or market capitalization, and list them. The DOW is different, as it's a selected group. Selected groups are always biased in several ways, and are generally less useful.
In fairness, the S&P isn't "best and brightest" companies, and isnt a slam-dunk to invest in. The Dow creates a manageable list of companies for an individual investor to follow and weight as they see fit.
The distinction might not matter much for mutual funds, as charging 0.5-2.0% of assets held gives you the ability to have a lot of resources to evaluate 500-2,000 companies.
S&P is a better proxy for the state of broad economic growth, but as an investment benchmark it seems irrational.
Should I assume that if you held 1,000 shares for a year you'd not be able to pay your living expenses? What about if your long term holdings fell by 10% or more?
Trading to make $500 is going to get you hurt long term. If you are taking those risks, why not buy $70 or $100 calls (1/2017 expiration) instead? You cut your capital exposure in half, or give yourself the chance to double returns for the same capital, and only marginally higher risks.
(Taking my advice to extreme will also get you hurt, but losing 10% to commissions isn't helping yourself.)
I don't care about Google. The numbers they use aren't the official calculations the GAO has used for decades, and so are useless in giving us any meaningful relation to past employment numbers.
We all know that actual employment is always lower than the number presented, because there are people out of work who aren't looking for jobs. The official. U very don't include them. But even so, those numbers remain the same as a percentage during similar economic situations.
So the official numbers are still the best indicator of where employment is at. When we at the depths of the Bush recession, actual unemployments was also much higher than the official 10.5% he gifted us with, perhaps 18%.
No matter how your political philosophy want to look at this to make things seems worse than they are, it's vastly better than they were. Even during the crazy low unemployment years of the Clinton administration, which went under 4%, a number I'd ,Ike to remind you that economists from bothe the right and left think was below the sustainable minimum unemployment of 5%, actual unemployment, but the figures you want to use now, would have been slightly over 6%.
But those figures are not considered to be useful, and so aren't used, because they are too variable. No one really knows why people decide to not look for work. Some is because they think they can't find any. Some is because they will only work in the business they were previously employees in, and others will not work for less than they were previously paid. And then there are these who are older and decide to retire.
How do you figure those people into the unemployment figures? It's cinsidered to be impossible to do it reliably, which is why the GAO doesn't try. It's considered to be too unreliable.
So 5.5% means the same it has always meant, and should be taken in relation to numbers that have always been published, rather than using unreliable numbers published by organizations with axes to grind.
In fairness, the S&P isn't "best and brightest" companies, and isnt a slam-dunk to invest in. The Dow creates a manageable list of companies for an individual investor to follow and weight as they see fit.
The distinction might not matter much for mutual funds, as charging 0.5-2.0% of assets held gives you the ability to have a lot of resources to evaluate 500-2,000 companies.
S&P is a better proxy for the state of broad economic growth, but as an investment benchmark it seems irrational.
There is no "slam dunk" index. The S&P 500 has selection criteria, and a rational weighting scheme. Funds that follow the S&P 500 (or any other index) have very low fees; VFIAX has an expense ratio of 0.05%.
An index should mean something. The Dow is virtually meaningless. It's a random assortment of companies, whose stock price is combined in an arbitrary fashion, to create an arbitrary number.
My investment strategy over the years has changed. I used to be a big trader thought the '90's. But I've shifted. I bought several thousand shares of Apple in mid 2004, and I've held on to them, buying smaller amounts a couple of times since then, mainly during the recession. The rest of my investments are shorter term. What began as less than 15% of my investments has now become almost 70%. I did fine elsewhere, but my Apple stock has grown by an unprecedented amount. I agree with Cramer; buy Apple stock, and hold it. Through the ups and downs, it will move up faster than the market over the longer run. And with the dividend, small as it is in percentage, it's a good amount per share.
Just in time for the next economic collapse. Grab some more AAPL, boys; we’re gonna clean up.
Nobody said anything about investing. We're just talking about indexes. When you take the largest companies, you are doing nothing else. It's just numbers. I never invest in an index in any way, just individual stocks. I never invest in mutual funds either. The average mutual fund does about the same as the market. If you're dumb enough to pay for a managed fund, then you do more poorly than the market just because of the large fees charged.
If you can't figure out what companies to buy, then maybe a low cost fund might be ok, they average a 7% return over the years. Managed funds do about 5% because of the fees. But it's got to be a fund that's widely represented. Funds that specialize do poorly over time.
What axe has the government's own Bureau of Labor Statistics to grind?
That trade is looking pretty smart now. I had my finger on the buy button, then decided to wait an extra day, as I made it mental note not to purchase anymore above $125. Ah well.
I agree. Individual stocks versus funds. My portfolio is very heavily weighted with AAPL, but that is simply the effect of thousands of percentage points of growth versus my other holdings.
Estimates have been that you need $1 million for retirement if you expect to live off interest or dividends. But that no longer true. It was, before the recession, that you could pull a good 6%, taxable, or 5% in triple taxfree munies, for a decent number, plus Social Security. But now, if you ca get 2%, you're doing well. So you have to pull capital down each year, which is a very difficult thing to do, as we really have no idea as to how long we'll be around. People actually spend their entire investment while they're still alive, and end up with nothing the last years.
1,000 shares of Apple looks good, but it's only worth about $130, rounding up a bit. $130 thousand is a very small number for a retirement investment. If you're deoending if dividends from that, it's only about $2,600 per year. A nice bonus, but not enough to make much of a difference. If you want to take a risk, you can invest that in Blackrock. Last I looked, they were offering over 9%. But it's very risky, and the stock doesn't mover the needle over time, so no increase there.
Yesterday I heard the very alarming news that the average American has less than $100K saved for retirement. Many people have nothing saved. This is very disturbing and could lead to account confiscation and redistribution at some point, since the ill-prepared will be the majority of voters.
Who is using the Dow Jones to make financial decisions with relation to the overall US Economy? The S&P 500 is what people should be looking at.
For investment decisions, I think that would be correct unless one primarily invests in tech stocks, in which case Nasdaq would be better. But for the overall health of the U.S. economy, I really think all three exchanges need to be evaluated.
Over the last few years, the S&P has outperformed the Dow. At the end of 2012, the Dow was up 7.3% for the year, but the S&P was up 13.4%. In 2013, it was 26.5% for the Dow and 29.6% for the S&P. In 2014, it was 7.5% for the Dow and 11.4% for the S&P. So far in 2015 (as of 2/28), it's 1.7% for the Dow and 2.2% for the S&P.
This is under the control of the GAO, which has stubbornly resisted the overture of both the right and the left over the decades. Fortunately, while we bemoan bureaucracies as being unresponsive, the area in which these are, unresponsiveness is a major virtue. They refuse to work, and release numbers that are politically biased. They are a back room organization. Both the right wingers and the left wingers hate this. They want to turn it to their own use, but have failed. It's why these no Bears are considered to be the most reliBle numbers any government gives out. So much so, and I'm talking about everything they do, that bothe the left and the right quote them for their own purposes, and other governments use them as well, because they also do worldwide statistical work that is considered to by much more unbiased than their own numbers which are very politically motivated.
I wouldn't argue them, even thougI I'm not always happy to see them myself.
For investment decisions, I think that would be correct unless one primarily invests in tech stocks, in which case Nasdaq would be better. But for the overall health of the U.S. economy, I really think all three exchanges need to be evaluated.
For a better view of the overall health of the US economy, one needs to look at the Russell 2000 which represents small cap stocks. The DJIA components are all in the S&P 500; the latter is a better barometer of big business. I ignore the Dow myself.
As someone who often invests in the technology sector, I do pay attention to the Nasdaq.