Wedbush initiates coverage of Apple stock with $405 price target

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 33
    vexorgvexorg Posts: 69member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by newbee View Post


    So your advice to someone who cannot afford to invest $20,000.00 in Apple is to invest $24,000.00 ..... huh? .... must be "new math" ..... do you work in the banking industry, perhaps? ...



    Oops - my bad. I meant 200/3 which is about 67 or so shares.



    It is a good idea when purchasing stock to set a dollar limit that you will spend - perhaps a certain percentage of your portfolio for that stock. Maybe no more than 10% or even less for a single stock. No matter how much you like a company, things can happen and you don't want your entire nest egg to go belly up.



    Think of the poor sods whose entire retirement accounts was in Enron stock - which I'm sure looked like a good idea at the time.
  • Reply 22 of 33
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by newbee View Post


    Can you show me any real positive, lasting effect on the last several years of increasing the money supply. I don't see it.



    Not my point, and I didn't want to debate politics anyway. I was simply pointing out the problem with the analogy.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by malax View Post


    He never said it was a "positive" impact.



    Thank you.
  • Reply 23 of 33
    cvaldes1831cvaldes1831 Posts: 1,832member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by OllieWallieWhiskers View Post


    why split?



    Mostly to increase the volume of shares traded by institutional investors. Fund managers are impelled to invest more in heavily traded companies.



    Berkshire-Hathaway's Class B shares split 50-to-1 in January 2010. Today's volume of BRK-B is roughly twice that of split-adjusted trading volume back in 2008. Also, it allowed Berkshire-Hathaway to be included as a component of the S&P 500.
  • Reply 24 of 33
    bageljoeybageljoey Posts: 1,941member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post


    Mostly to increase the volume of shares traded by institutional investors. Fund managers are impelled to invest more in heavily traded companies.



    Berkshire-Hathaway's Class B shares split 50-to-1 in January 2010. Today's volume of BRK-B is roughly twice that of split-adjusted trading volume back in 2008. Also, it allowed Berkshire-Hathaway to be included as a component of the S&P 500.



    I think using BRK-B as your lone example is rather weak. Even if you had a more relevant example, it would only be anecdotal.

    Still, there may be evidence out there to support this theory, but since this same troll has brought up this topic under who knows how many now banned names, I don't see any point in giving him the satisfaction of getting into it...
  • Reply 25 of 33
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by malax View Post


    He never said it was a "positive" impact.



    Actually, he kinda did. I made a comparison of two statements stating both as being "bad strategy", in other words ... negative. He replied that I was only half right .... meaning his answering statement was a positive one ...... but I'm thinking your reply was meant to be humorous ... no?
  • Reply 26 of 33
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by newbee View Post


    Actually, he kinda did. I made a comparison of two statements stating both as being "bad strategy", in other words ... negative. He replied that I was only half right .... meaning his answering statement was a positive one ...... but I'm thinking your reply was meant to be humorous ... no?



    Actually, no, I kinda didn't. The half-right part was that stock splits don't have any real impact.
  • Reply 27 of 33
    macrrmacrr Posts: 488member
    stock splits do have an impact.



    in some cases they can be beneficial for a company in distress... and in many cases the can be disparaging to a company's value.



    take apple for instance. when apple was was in the sub $150 range it was far more open to day trading bullshit along with stock manipulation via "news".



    Apple doing a stock split would have zero benefits. Steve Jobs is very aware of all of this. His health was a huge basis of manipulation. Anyone remember Bloomberg's supposedly erroneous obituary release? I doubt he will split the stock opening it up to more such BS. A $300 stock is far harder to manipulate than a $150 or lower priced stock.
  • Reply 28 of 33
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    Actually, no, I kinda didn't. The half-right part was that stock splits don't have any real impact.



    So we don't agree with the value of expanding the money supply policy . Instead of being vague about the merits of that policy why not just explain why you seem to think it's a good policy?
  • Reply 29 of 33
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by newbee View Post


    So we don't agree with the value of expanding the money supply policy . Instead of being vague about the merits of that policy why not just explain why you seem to think it's a good policy?



    No, I expressed no opinion whatsoever on that issue. I don't feel a need to add any irrelvancies to this discussion.
  • Reply 30 of 33
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MacRR View Post


    stock splits do have an impact.



    in some cases they can be beneficial for a company in distress... and in many cases the can be disparaging to a company's value.



    take apple for instance. when apple was was in the sub $150 range it was far more open to day trading bullshit along with stock manipulation via "news".



    Apple doing a stock split would have zero benefits. Steve Jobs is very aware of all of this. His health was a huge basis of manipulation. Anyone remember Bloomberg's supposedly erroneous obituary release? I doubt he will split the stock opening it up to more such BS. A $300 stock is far harder to manipulate than a $150 or lower priced stock.



    There is no truth of any kind to any of this, except that stock splits are not beneficial under nearly all circumstances. The impact on trading is nil if only because the change in the value of the shares available for trading is nil.
  • Reply 31 of 33
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    No, I expressed no opinion whatsoever on that issue. I don't feel a need to add any irrelvancies to this discussion.



    Of course not, why change now?
  • Reply 32 of 33
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Exactly. I'm confident I can leave the irrelevancies to you.
  • Reply 33 of 33
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    Exactly. I'm confident I can leave the irrelevancies to you.



    With your superior experience of using irrelevant posts ... you should feel confident!
Sign In or Register to comment.