LOL if we're going to reduce the word soaring to "a tiny tiny rise" then yeah, you're right. But you're the only one saying that. The people with whom I'm arguing on this thread are clearly claiming that a 2% rise is a large increase simply because Apple is large. Sadly I'm guessing they wouldn't be so happy if Apple did what most large companies do at best, and increase in value by 8-15% in a solid year. Something tells me most stockholders of Apple wouldn't consider that "soaring" over the course of a year. Yet by your definition, as long as Apple stock increases by a penny every day for the next year, it will have SOARED EVERY DAY, and it's 0.05% gain over the course of the year would be met with happy headlines proclaiming that AAPL stock SOARED in 2012. Right?

Riiiight

You're missing the point (LOL, yourself). I'm saying that the writers on the market often say this. You seem to think that it's just AI. It's not. Perhaps you should read the financial press more often.

I don't happen to think that monetarally, a 2% rise is tremendous, but it's a good rise for one day, no matter what. And big cap companies don't do that as often as small cap companies.

It is. What some people don't seem to understand is that movement in the markets is more psychological than monetary. I just got, as I'm writing this, a notification that the markets are down, because they are taking " a breather". If that's not psychological, I don't know what is!

Almost every day, we can see articles in the financial press about how a stock has "jumped", even though it's moved one point. It's almost all psychology. So a 2% rise in one day, particularly when it all came upon opening—a straight line up on the chart, can be described as a leap, or having soared at the opening. Not so unusual a description, even though some don't like to read it.

Those are examples of anthropomorphism or personification, not psychology.

No clue where you got those numbers from. I simply created a spreadsheet with 1 at the top and the second row = A1*1.01, and copied that down 250 times (to account for 5 days a week instead of 7). How you ended up with only 1/3 of the gain I did I am totally unaware. Let me know how you came to the 1% gain number like you did.

By your logic even a 0.1% gain is an unsustainable SOAR because nothing can grow at any exponential rate, no matter how small, forever.

What you did in excel is not compound interest...

Compound interest is calculated by :

value = Principle*(1 +rate)^interval#

This isn't fair because a bank would not do this but you argue you can't trade on saturday so whatever. With 250 days per year not 356 which I did.

value = 1000*(1.02)^250 = $141267.72

0.5% interest on 1000 dollars equals $3479.49 in value after 1 year. 248% apr AAPL stock price would be 2366.05

1.0% interest on 1000 dollars equals $12032.16 in value after 1 year. 1103% apr AAPL stock price would be 8181.87

2.0% interest on 1000 dollars equals $141267.72 in value after 1 year. 14126.772% AAPL stock price would be 96062

THERE IS NO LOGIC HERE. By MATH 0.1% gain compounded daily equals a 28.3% annual return but still WAY better than the rest of the market. Compound interest is amazingly powerful.

It is. What some people don't seem to understand is that movement in the markets is more psychological than monetary. I just got, as I'm writing this, a notification that the markets are down, because they are taking " a breather". If that's not psychological, I don't know what is!

I would argue that's the writer anthropomorphizing to aid in understanding, rather than an actual reflection of the world.

You're missing the point (LOL, yourself). I'm saying that the writers on the market often say this. You seem to think that it's just AI. It's not. Perhaps you should read the financial press more often.

I don't happen to think that monetarally, a 2% rise is tremendous, but it's a good rise for one day, no matter what. And big cap companies don't do that as often as small cap companies.

There's no doubt that writers often exaggerate the goodness of something when it's something they're happy about. That's exactly what I'm pointing out. Appleinsider staff is acting as a fan of the stock and the company, rather than reporting the news as it happened.

This isn't fair because a bank would not do this but you argue you can't trade on saturday so whatever. With 250 days per year not 356 which I did.

value = 1000*(1.02)^250 = $141267.72

0.5% interest on 1000 dollars equals $3479.49 in value after 1 year. 248% apr AAPL stock price would be 2366.05

1.0% interest on 1000 dollars equals $12032.16 in value after 1 year. 1103% apr AAPL stock price would be 8181.87

2.0% interest on 1000 dollars equals $141267.72 in value after 1 year. 14126.772% AAPL stock price would be 96062

THERE IS NO LOGIC HERE. By MATH 0.1% gain compounded daily equals a 28.3% annual return but still WAY better than the rest of the market. Compound interest is amazingly powerful.

Feel educated, not dissed.

I still don't understand why multiplying each day by 1.01 wouldn't yield the correct outcome after 250 days and why your does. Definitely not a math major. Am I wrong? Does multiplying a given day by 1.01 not yield a 1% increase? And does doing that 250 times not simulate a stock going up by exactly 1% every day?

I grant that what I did in excel is not compound interest, but why is compound interest what you want here? I don't think it is. What we are talking about is what would happen if the stock went up 1% every day. Correct?

Sadly, I don't feel educated. I think you just justified your own incorrect method by throwing a lot of math at me, which a lot of overeducated people will do to try to avoid being wrong when they are.

I still don't understand why multiplying each day by 1.01 wouldn't yield the correct outcome after 250 days and why your does. Definitely not a math major. Am I wrong? Does multiplying a given day by 1.01 not yield a 1% increase? And does doing that 250 times not simulate a stock going up by exactly 1% every day?

I grant that what I did in excel is not compound interest, but why is compound interest what you want here? I don't think it is. What we are talking about is what would happen if the stock went up 1% every day. Correct?

Sadly, I don't feel educated. I think you just justified your own incorrect method by throwing a lot of math at me, which a lot of overeducated people will do to try to avoid being wrong when they are.

By definition, yesterdays gains become today's starting price. Each day you get a new starting price and value. When you get to keep your interest and it continues to grow each day at a percentage, that is compound interest.

Day Balance

Now P

D1 = P + rP

D2 = D1 + rD1

D2 = (P + rP) + r(P + rP) There is a common (P+rP) so we can pull it out leaving (1+r)

= (P+rP)*(1+r) There is a common P so we can pull it out leaving another (1+r)

= P*(1+r)*(1+r) Multiplying (1+r) by (1+r) is the same as (1+r)^2

= P*(1+r)^2

DN = P*(1 +r)^N If you continue this for Day 3 and Day 4 you will see that the formula can be simplified to this.

Compound means you get to keep and reinvest your principle and return every time. Sorry I can't do better instructing, but your method is not compounding.

By definition, yesterdays gains become today's starting price. Each day you get a new starting price and value. When you get to keep your interest and it continues to grow each day at a percentage, that is compound interest.

Which is exactly the process I used. Explain why my method is wrong.

By the way I'm sure everyone has already seen, AAPL is plunging today at a totally unsustainable annualized rate. 0.73% down today! AIEEEEE! Hopefully tomorrow it will SOAR again and gain at least 1%.

Apple long ago surpassed Dell in market cap. Interesting to note too, at yesterdays close, Apple's market cap exceeded that of not only Dell, but Dell, Microsoft, Intel and IBM combined.

I still don't understand why multiplying each day by 1.01 wouldn't yield the correct outcome after 250 days and why your does. Definitely not a math major. Am I wrong? Does multiplying a given day by 1.01 not yield a 1% increase? And does doing that 250 times not simulate a stock going up by exactly 1% every day?

I grant that what I did in excel is not compound interest, but why is compound interest what you want here? I don't think it is. What we are talking about is what would happen if the stock went up 1% every day. Correct?

Sadly, I don't feel educated. I think you just justified your own incorrect method by throwing a lot of math at me, which a lot of overeducated people will do to try to avoid being wrong when they are.

Your method is not wrong. A 1% increase every day for 250 days would be exactly what you've described.

Interesting (not surprising) delrey that you would assume the person you disagreed with exaggerated his numbers by a factor of 10 but not question the numbers of the person that you thought you agreed with. I guarantee the difference is accounted for by the exclusion of 2% drops, for which there is no reason in this discussion. We are talking magnitude of moves, not only increases. A 2% move is VERY common and is certainly not of the rare order that you would want to bust out the superlatives.

Our starting assumptions were off. I compounded for 365 vs your 250. Our math is now consistent as is my point. No one alive is predicting the stock prices of $2366.05, $8181.87 or $96062 for 0.5%, 1% or 2% sustained growth. I am presenting hard evidence to refute your statement of 2% per day is not large enough to be considered "soaring." My contention is that this kind of movement in the stock value IS soaring because it is not meaningful to the projected growth path that the company is on. It cannot be sustained or the above stock prices would occur (with your 250 days trading per year).

You are right we need to look at volatility as well, but a 2% reaction to a lawsuit in a day when the market closed lower it meaningful and soaring. As people said before the movement was enough to equal the value of a large number of significant companies, this is a big deal.

By the way I'm sure everyone has already seen, AAPL is plunging today at a totally unsustainable annualized rate. 0.73% down today! AIEEEEE! Hopefully tomorrow it will SOAR again and gain at least 1%.

I was going to remark that APPL had "crashed" a few hours ago but you two were so embroiled in debate I thought the moment would have been lost.

I am presenting hard evidence to refute your statement of 2% per day is not large enough to be considered "soaring." My contention is that this kind of movement in the stock value IS soaring because it is not meaningful to the projected growth path that the company is on. It cannot be sustained or the above stock prices would occur (with your 250 days trading per year).

You've refuted that very well, but do you care that I've specifically stated several times that that was not my statement, and that my objection was to a SINGLE DAY EXPLOSION of 2% up being called "soaring"? No, you don't care You've decided on your correctness whether or not it has anything to do with the topic at hand. I'm done with this thread though, I win

## Comments

33,237memberYou're missing the point (LOL, yourself). I'm saying that the writers on the market often say this. You seem to think that it's just AI. It's not. Perhaps you should read the financial press more often.

I don't happen to think that monetarally, a 2% rise is tremendous, but it's a good rise for one day, no matter what. And big cap companies don't do that as often as small cap companies.

66memberQuote:

Originally Posted by

melgrossIt is. What some people don't seem to understand is that movement in the markets is more psychological than monetary. I just got, as I'm writing this, a notification that the markets are down, because they are taking " a breather". If that's not psychological, I don't know what is!

Almost every day, we can see articles in the financial press about how a stock has "jumped", even though it's moved one point. It's almost all psychology. So a 2% rise in one day, particularly when it all came upon opening—a straight line up on the chart, can be described as a leap, or having soared at the opening. Not so unusual a description, even though some don't like to read it.

Those are examples of

anthropomorphismorpersonification,not psychology.82memberQuote:

Originally Posted by

cameronjNo clue where you got those numbers from. I simply created a spreadsheet with 1 at the top and the second row = A1*1.01, and copied that down 250 times (to account for 5 days a week instead of 7). How you ended up with only 1/3 of the gain I did I am totally unaware. Let me know how you came to the 1% gain number like you did.

By your logic even a 0.1% gain is an unsustainable SOAR because nothing can grow at any exponential rate, no matter how small, forever.

What you did in excel is not compound interest...

Compound interest is calculated by :

value = Principle*(1 +rate)^interval#

This isn't fair because a bank would not do this but you argue you can't trade on saturday so whatever. With 250 days per year not 356 which I did.

value = 1000*(1.02)^250 = $141267.72

0.5% interest on 1000 dollars equals $3479.49 in value after 1 year. 248% apr AAPL stock price would be 2366.05

1.0% interest on 1000 dollars equals $12032.16 in value after 1 year. 1103% apr AAPL stock price would be 8181.87

2.0% interest on 1000 dollars equals $141267.72 in value after 1 year. 14126.772% AAPL stock price would be 96062

THERE IS NO LOGIC HERE. By MATH 0.1% gain compounded daily equals a 28.3% annual return but still WAY better than the rest of the market. Compound interest is amazingly powerful.

Feel educated, not dissed.

2,357memberQuote:

Originally Posted by

melgrossIt is. What some people don't seem to understand is that movement in the markets is more psychological than monetary. I just got, as I'm writing this, a notification that the markets are down, because they are taking " a breather". If that's not psychological, I don't know what is!

I would argue that's the writer anthropomorphizing to aid in understanding, rather than an actual reflection of the world.

2,357memberQuote:

Originally Posted by

melgrossYou're missing the point (LOL, yourself). I'm saying that the writers on the market often say this. You seem to think that it's just AI. It's not. Perhaps you should read the financial press more often.

I don't happen to think that monetarally, a 2% rise is tremendous, but it's a good rise for one day, no matter what. And big cap companies don't do that as often as small cap companies.

There's no doubt that writers often exaggerate the goodness of something when it's something they're happy about. That's exactly what I'm pointing out. Appleinsider staff is acting as a fan of the stock and the company, rather than reporting the news as it happened.

2,357memberQuote:

Originally Posted by

mmmdoughnutsWhat you did in excel is not compound interest...

Compound interest is calculated by :

value = Principle*(1 +rate)^interval#

This isn't fair because a bank would not do this but you argue you can't trade on saturday so whatever. With 250 days per year not 356 which I did.

value = 1000*(1.02)^250 = $141267.72

0.5% interest on 1000 dollars equals $3479.49 in value after 1 year. 248% apr AAPL stock price would be 2366.05

1.0% interest on 1000 dollars equals $12032.16 in value after 1 year. 1103% apr AAPL stock price would be 8181.87

2.0% interest on 1000 dollars equals $141267.72 in value after 1 year. 14126.772% AAPL stock price would be 96062

THERE IS NO LOGIC HERE. By MATH 0.1% gain compounded daily equals a 28.3% annual return but still WAY better than the rest of the market. Compound interest is amazingly powerful.

Feel educated, not dissed.

I still don't understand why multiplying each day by 1.01 wouldn't yield the correct outcome after 250 days and why your does. Definitely not a math major. Am I wrong? Does multiplying a given day by 1.01 not yield a 1% increase? And does doing that 250 times not simulate a stock going up by exactly 1% every day?

I grant that what I did in excel is not compound interest, but why is compound interest what you want here? I don't think it is. What we are talking about is what would happen if the stock went up 1% every day. Correct?

Sadly, I don't feel educated. I think you just justified your own incorrect method by throwing a lot of math at me, which a lot of overeducated people will do to try to avoid being wrong when they are.

82memberQuote:

Originally Posted by

cameronjI still don't understand why multiplying each day by 1.01 wouldn't yield the correct outcome after 250 days and why your does. Definitely not a math major. Am I wrong? Does multiplying a given day by 1.01 not yield a 1% increase? And does doing that 250 times not simulate a stock going up by exactly 1% every day?

I grant that what I did in excel is not compound interest, but why is compound interest what you want here? I don't think it is. What we are talking about is what would happen if the stock went up 1% every day. Correct?

Sadly, I don't feel educated. I think you just justified your own incorrect method by throwing a lot of math at me, which a lot of overeducated people will do to try to avoid being wrong when they are.

Please look up compound interest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_interest

By definition, yesterdays gains become today's starting price. Each day you get a new starting price and value. When you get to keep your interest and it continues to grow each day at a percentage, that is compound interest.

Day BalanceNow P

D1 = P + rP

D2 = D1 + rD1

D2 = (P + rP) + r(P + rP) There is a common (P+rP) so we can pull it out leaving (1+r)

= (P+rP)*(1+r) There is a common P so we can pull it out leaving another (1+r)

= P*(1+r)*(1+r) Multiplying (1+r) by (1+r) is the same as (1+r)^2

= P*(1+r)^2

DN = P*(1 +r)^N If you continue this for Day 3 and Day 4 you will see that the formula can be simplified to this.

Compound means you get to keep and reinvest your principle and return every time. Sorry I can't do better instructing, but your method is not compounding.

2,357memberQuote:

Originally Posted by

mmmdoughnutsPlease look up compound interest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_interest

By definition, yesterdays gains become today's starting price. Each day you get a new starting price and value. When you get to keep your interest and it continues to grow each day at a percentage, that is compound interest.

Which is exactly the process I used. Explain why my method is wrong.

2,357memberBy the way I'm sure everyone has already seen, AAPL is plunging today at a totally unsustainable annualized rate. 0.73% down today! AIEEEEE! Hopefully tomorrow it will SOAR again and gain at least 1%.

16memberApple long ago surpassed Dell in market cap. Interesting to note too, at yesterdays close, Apple's market cap exceeded that of not only Dell, but Dell, Microsoft, Intel and IBM combined.

10,473memberYour method is not wrong. A 1% increase every day for 250 days would be exactly what you've described.

Or, to simplify, (1.01)**250

2,357memberQuote:

Originally Posted by

jragostaYour method is not wrong. A 1% increase every day for 250 days would be exactly what you've described.

Or, to simplify, (1.01)**250

So is mmdonuts just being obtuse?

333memberQuote:

Originally Posted by

cameronjInteresting (not surprising) delrey that you would assume the person you disagreed with exaggerated his numbers by a factor of 10 but not question the numbers of the person that you thought you agreed with. I guarantee the difference is accounted for by the exclusion of 2% drops, for which there is no reason in this discussion. We are talking magnitude of moves, not only increases. A 2% move is VERY common and is certainly not of the rare order that you would want to bust out the superlatives.

I stand correct and I appreciate being educated!!

82memberQuote:

Originally Posted by

cameronjSo is mmdonuts just being obtuse?

Our starting assumptions were off. I compounded for 365 vs your 250. Our math is now consistent as is my point. No one alive is predicting the stock prices of $2366.05, $8181.87 or $96062 for 0.5%, 1% or 2% sustained growth. I am presenting hard evidence to refute your statement of 2% per day is not large enough to be considered "soaring." My contention is that this kind of movement in the stock value IS soaring because it is not meaningful to the projected growth path that the company is on. It cannot be sustained or the above stock prices would occur (with your 250 days trading per year).

You are right we need to look at volatility as well, but a 2% reaction to a lawsuit in a day when the market closed lower it meaningful and soaring. As people said before the movement was enough to equal the value of a large number of significant companies, this is a big deal.

66memberQuote:

Originally Posted by

cameronjBy the way I'm sure everyone has already seen, AAPL is plunging today at a totally unsustainable annualized rate. 0.73% down today! AIEEEEE! Hopefully tomorrow it will SOAR again and gain at least 1%.

I was going to remark that APPL had "crashed" a few hours ago but you two were so embroiled in debate I thought the moment would have been lost.

2,357memberQuote:

Originally Posted by

bizzleI was going to remark that APPL had "crashed" a few hours ago but you two were so embroiled in debate I thought the moment would have been lost.

See what happens when you snooze?

2,357memberQuote:

Originally Posted by

mmmdoughnutsI am presenting hard evidence to refute

your statement of 2% per dayis not large enough to be considered "soaring." My contention is that this kind of movement in the stock value IS soaring because it is not meaningful to the projected growth path that the company is on. It cannot be sustained or the above stock prices would occur (with your 250 days trading per year).You've refuted that very well, but do you care that I've specifically stated several times that that was not my statement, and that my objection was to a SINGLE DAY EXPLOSION of 2% up being called "soaring"? No, you don't care You've decided on your correctness whether or not it has anything to do with the topic at hand. I'm done with this thread though, I win