Your point was clearly that 60% up moves are (inherently) "not likely". The fact that a randomly selected time period contained a 53% up move undermined your point. Now you are trying to "walk it back". Here's some free advice: take a look at smartphone penetration (growth of smartphones as a % of all phones) and apple's penetration of the smartphone market. Apple is getting a larger and larger share of a constantly growing market with like 98% left to go world wide. $1000 will be easy by end of 2013, if not sooner. $5000 will take a few years, but it will happen. Wish you could go back in time and invest in Standard Oil when it was just getting started? Here's your chance.
You actually just proved my point. Apple should go up 120% in 2 years? Based on what? Nonsense, that's not how investing works.As a stockholder I'm very aware what the past performance has been and I've done VERY well. I couldn't give 2 craps about this analyst's opinion. I've read 4 more like his and 4 more opposite. If any of these guys REALLY knew, they'd be on an island drinking and not working writing opinions. Apple's a large stock not a speculative pharma stock. It will move higher, in time, as I originally said, but absent a new product line or 2, it won't stabilize at $1000 in 12 months. It surely will be over $700 by the end of the year, unless they blow up the quarter some how. The growth isn't there in refreshing current products to warrant that kind of growth. iPhone and iPad are up, but iPods are down, Macs fluctuate quarter to quarter, and iTunes revenue isn't as robust as it used to be. Most of Apple's revenue is in iPhone, outside the US. Is that really going to double in the next year?
This advice is free, you should probably avoid investing.
Your point was clearly that 60% up moves are (inherently) "not likely". The fact that a randomly selected time period contained a 53% up move undermined your point. Now you are trying to "walk it back". Here's some free advice: take a look at smartphone penetration (growth of smartphones as a % of all phones) and apple's penetration of the smartphone market. Apple is getting a larger and larger share of a constantly growing market with like 98% left to go world wide. $1000 will be easy by end of 2013, if not sooner. $5000 will take a few years, but it will happen. Wish you could go back in time and invest in Standard Oil when it was just getting started? Here's your chance.
Your point was clearly that 60% up moves are (inherently) "not likely". The fact that a randomly selected time period contained a 53% up move undermined your point. Now you are trying to "walk it back".
LOL. Let me get this straight. You're going to tell ME what MY point was?? Got it. No, the previous moves helps underline MY point, yes 60% moves are unlikely in large stocks but not impossible. In fact Apple is only up ~10% or so in the last 6 months. Sustained moves that way are definitely not likely and since the longer curve is much steeper and it is even MORE much less likely. I'm walking forward, you're walking in circles with blinders on.
Quote:
Here's some free advice: take a look at smartphone penetration (growth of smartphones as a % of all phones) and apple's penetration of the smartphone market
Perhaps you should. Outside of the US particularly, Apple is getting stiff competition by Android, like it or not. That landscape will intensify going forward in addition to other players (Windows, Blackberry reboot which is still very popular in places), not decline, meaning it will only be harder for Apple to maintain that growth. Never mind the supply chain logistics of producing devices.
Quote:
Wish you could go back in time and invest in Standard Oil when it was just getting started? Here's your chance.
Not really actually. I live in the present. But I bet you wish you could have my Apple portfolio, ha. Wait, why am I wasting my time on someone with 5 posts again? /ignore
When apple sells 200M iPhones per year (next year?) and what is it now $400 profit oper phone> , you do the arithmetic, that is one heck of a jump in sales and revenue. Remember Apple is heavily owned byinstitutions not fanboys. So once the rality ofd the iphones sales gets announced the proce will start heading up. Wioth the usial dat trading pepfit making boucing up and down all over the pace on ist way up. I leave short term profit making to the experts. btw I'm have a long 2 year position in Apple. I gues the time to start reducing and re-balancing my postion will be once the price gets to 1100. or when everyone is buying it and bleating it is a guaranteed profit. Just watch folks. I think once it gets to over 1000 then is the time to start trading it as it rolls.
I must admit my postion is too heavily weighted in Apple right now. I may have to reduce my position next year. But the way it seems to me this is really the time to hold on to it and ride it up.
If Apple had done a 10-1 split a year ago, and was now trading at $63-$64 a share today, and Andy posted an article saying "Apple's going to $100 a share!" it wouldn't even get a comment... because it is no big deal.
It is the fact that Apple hasn't done a split that has people so confused. They think $600 a share is a lot of money for a single share and there's no way anyone will be paying $1,000 for those same shares! I mean, you could buy a used car for that!
Yet this is the same as saying "There's no way anyone would pay $100 a share! You could give your grandkids a card with that in it!"
It's totally silly.
The reality is this-- people are financially illiterate. This is why it's easy to make money with stocks like Apple. Not that Apple isn't one of the more rare, better managed companies.
The PE is low. Whether the PE will expand or not, who knows. It is certainly expanding these days, but how far it will go doesn't matter.
Apple is going to grow by %60 in the next year.
Those who think this is silly are the same people who a year ago, when Apple had just hit $400, would say "Apple at $600? By April? Impossible!"
Share price may not matter, but market cap does....
You cannot provide a single argument to support that, can you? Seriously, I'd like you to try.
People think that somehow, when a company reaches a Billion dollars it has to stop growing, because no company ever before has been worth a Billion dollars.
Oh, wait, we're talking a Trillion dollars this time. Well, that means its totall different, right?
Nonsense.
Hell, the dollars aren't even the same-- every year the dollar declines in value, and lately that decline has been dramatic.
If you want to make this argument, show that Apple has saturated its markets.... which will be kinda funny given the state of the Phone and Tablet markets right now, as well as Apples %90 share of the PC market, no wait, that was %15 share of the PC market.
You guys just repeat this nonsense and you *don't* make arguments because you can't. You know nothing but you believe what you've been told.
Well, financially illiterate, this is why you didn't buy Apple when it was at $13 and had $6 in cash per share.
Now you think $600 and $100 in cash per share is "Expensive" for a company growing at %40 a year (or more.)
It's so psychological. If they did a 10 for 1 stock split and the target was $100 everyone would think that was reasonable based on the analysis.
I'm going to keep loading up on Apple stock while it stays within this P/E ratio. If it doesn't go up, I'm buying low. If it gets to $1000, I'll pair back and take some gains off the table.
You guys really need to educate yourselves. The term "law of large numbers" has almost replaced "that's so ironic" as being the most widely used saying that people use so incorrectly... Everyone seems to use "ironic" when they really mean coincidental... Not to say some people cant use it right. They usually just dont.. Same thing here with law of large numbers. Jesus.... the law of large numbers is a theorem that states that as your sample size increases, the likelihood that your average moves closer to the theoretical average increases. For example, if you roll two dice, the most likely average roll is 7. Do it 3 times and you may or may not see 7 come up most often. Do it 1,000,000 times and the likelihood that 7 is your average is great. That is the law of large numbers. You and everyone else in the media seems to want to use that term to say that apple has become too large. That means nothing.... Addressable market and market saturation are more relevant metrics... and clearly apple has room to grow in those regards... Please people... please do some research.. apple will go to 1,000... they WILL be the first trillion dollar company.. it is a fact.... get over it.. now you have two choices, you can either wait for that headline and say, aww man I should have bought when it was 600s... OR you can just buy the darn thing now, and be proud of yourself later.. and a little more rich......
ko024, while I agree that the term is probably misused, and may have been misused this time as well. There is still a relation to the "law of large numbers" and the statement that Apple will plateau (ie will not rise indefinitely.) The relation is that if make the reasonable assumption that the Apple's average stock price (over it's entire existence... future and past) is finite then it will "plateau" at some point. I'm not saying that point is higher or lower than $1,000.... I'm just staying that in order to have a finite average stock price it can not be monotonic from this point forward.
But I agree with your general statement. "law of large numbers" does not indicate when the plateau would occur (or its value.) It does speak to the notion that finite averages exclude monotonic increasing functions.
You guys really need to educate yourselves. The term "law of large numbers" has almost replaced "that's so ironic" as being the most widely used saying that people use so incorrectly... Everyone seems to use "ironic" when they really mean coincidental... Not to say some people cant use it right. They usually just dont.. Same thing here with law of large numbers. Jesus.... the law of large numbers is a theorem that states that as your sample size increases, the likelihood that your average moves closer to the theoretical average increases. For example, if you roll two dice, the most likely average roll is 7. Do it 3 times and you may or may not see 7 come up most often. Do it 1,000,000 times and the likelihood that 7 is your average is great. That is the law of large numbers. You and everyone else in the media seems to want to use that term to say that apple has become too large. That means nothing.... Addressable market and market saturation are more relevant metrics... and clearly apple has room to grow in those regards... Please people... please do some research.. apple will go to 1,000... they WILL be the first trillion dollar company.. it is a fact.... get over it.. now you have two choices, you can either wait for that headline and say, aww man I should have bought when it was 600s... OR you can just buy the darn thing now, and be proud of yourself later.. and a little more rich......
Independent thought and critical reasoning are not allowed. You will be absorbed.
No, it just means he has filled up his portfolio for this gyration... which seems to be what most of the pros have done over the past 3 trading days. That said, I don't believe in $1,000 in 12 months; it is possible in 24 if the dividend keeps increasing, but I think we are looking more like 30 months. 18% average annual return without any leverage.
Sounds like a good deal. I only get 2 X margin and 4 X margin for daytrades.
I gotta admit though, 20X margin sounds pretty scary. Aren't you worried about a margin call? There are periods where AAPL declines.
I've have had a margin call quite a few times, my broker is pretty good and I can eat into that margin without them selling any of my Spreads. I get a little nervous at times, but have been watching AAPL for nearly 20 years and have got pretty used to the movements. I only ramp it up when I'm sure of a rise (such as today), but it means I no longer do much IOS programming as I have to watch the stocks constantly, which is a shame.
Comments
Your point was clearly that 60% up moves are (inherently) "not likely". The fact that a randomly selected time period contained a 53% up move undermined your point. Now you are trying to "walk it back". Here's some free advice: take a look at smartphone penetration (growth of smartphones as a % of all phones) and apple's penetration of the smartphone market. Apple is getting a larger and larger share of a constantly growing market with like 98% left to go world wide. $1000 will be easy by end of 2013, if not sooner. $5000 will take a few years, but it will happen. Wish you could go back in time and invest in Standard Oil when it was just getting started? Here's your chance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe
You actually just proved my point. Apple should go up 120% in 2 years? Based on what? Nonsense, that's not how investing works.As a stockholder I'm very aware what the past performance has been and I've done VERY well. I couldn't give 2 craps about this analyst's opinion. I've read 4 more like his and 4 more opposite. If any of these guys REALLY knew, they'd be on an island drinking and not working writing opinions. Apple's a large stock not a speculative pharma stock. It will move higher, in time, as I originally said, but absent a new product line or 2, it won't stabilize at $1000 in 12 months. It surely will be over $700 by the end of the year, unless they blow up the quarter some how. The growth isn't there in refreshing current products to warrant that kind of growth. iPhone and iPad are up, but iPods are down, Macs fluctuate quarter to quarter, and iTunes revenue isn't as robust as it used to be. Most of Apple's revenue is in iPhone, outside the US. Is that really going to double in the next year?
This advice is free, you should probably avoid investing.
Your point was clearly that 60% up moves are (inherently) "not likely". The fact that a randomly selected time period contained a 53% up move undermined your point. Now you are trying to "walk it back". Here's some free advice: take a look at smartphone penetration (growth of smartphones as a % of all phones) and apple's penetration of the smartphone market. Apple is getting a larger and larger share of a constantly growing market with like 98% left to go world wide. $1000 will be easy by end of 2013, if not sooner. $5000 will take a few years, but it will happen. Wish you could go back in time and invest in Standard Oil when it was just getting started? Here's your chance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity
I use Spread Betting with 20X leverage.
What does that mean?
They give you 20X margin?
If you have $10,000 in cash, you can buy shares for $200,000?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
What does that mean?
They give you 20X margin?
If you have $10,000 in cash, you can buy shares for $200,000?
Yeah. $200,000 is correct. 5% margin. Which equates to 20 X that which you could previously afford to buy(with plain jane shares).
Currencies are even 'better', I can buy $200,000 with just $1k then swap them for GBP at a later date when the exchange rate is in my favour.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwirky
Your point was clearly that 60% up moves are (inherently) "not likely". The fact that a randomly selected time period contained a 53% up move undermined your point. Now you are trying to "walk it back".
LOL. Let me get this straight. You're going to tell ME what MY point was?? Got it. No, the previous moves helps underline MY point, yes 60% moves are unlikely in large stocks but not impossible. In fact Apple is only up ~10% or so in the last 6 months. Sustained moves that way are definitely not likely and since the longer curve is much steeper and it is even MORE much less likely. I'm walking forward, you're walking in circles with blinders on.
Quote:
Here's some free advice: take a look at smartphone penetration (growth of smartphones as a % of all phones) and apple's penetration of the smartphone market
Perhaps you should. Outside of the US particularly, Apple is getting stiff competition by Android, like it or not. That landscape will intensify going forward in addition to other players (Windows, Blackberry reboot which is still very popular in places), not decline, meaning it will only be harder for Apple to maintain that growth. Never mind the supply chain logistics of producing devices.
Quote:
Wish you could go back in time and invest in Standard Oil when it was just getting started? Here's your chance.
Not really actually. I live in the present. But I bet you wish you could have my Apple portfolio, ha. Wait, why am I wasting my time on someone with 5 posts again? /ignore
I must admit my postion is too heavily weighted in Apple right now. I may have to reduce my position next year. But the way it seems to me this is really the time to hold on to it and ride it up.
Andy's analysis of AAPL has been consistently excellent. Great work again with this article, thanks Andy!
It is the fact that Apple hasn't done a split that has people so confused. They think $600 a share is a lot of money for a single share and there's no way anyone will be paying $1,000 for those same shares! I mean, you could buy a used car for that!
Yet this is the same as saying "There's no way anyone would pay $100 a share! You could give your grandkids a card with that in it!"
It's totally silly.
The reality is this-- people are financially illiterate. This is why it's easy to make money with stocks like Apple. Not that Apple isn't one of the more rare, better managed companies.
The PE is low. Whether the PE will expand or not, who knows. It is certainly expanding these days, but how far it will go doesn't matter.
Apple is going to grow by %60 in the next year.
Those who think this is silly are the same people who a year ago, when Apple had just hit $400, would say "Apple at $600? By April? Impossible!"
And they were wrong.
I've always found that free advice was worth every penny I paid for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeb85
Share price may not matter, but market cap does....
You cannot provide a single argument to support that, can you? Seriously, I'd like you to try.
People think that somehow, when a company reaches a Billion dollars it has to stop growing, because no company ever before has been worth a Billion dollars.
Oh, wait, we're talking a Trillion dollars this time. Well, that means its totall different, right?
Nonsense.
Hell, the dollars aren't even the same-- every year the dollar declines in value, and lately that decline has been dramatic.
If you want to make this argument, show that Apple has saturated its markets.... which will be kinda funny given the state of the Phone and Tablet markets right now, as well as Apples %90 share of the PC market, no wait, that was %15 share of the PC market.
You guys just repeat this nonsense and you *don't* make arguments because you can't. You know nothing but you believe what you've been told.
Well, financially illiterate, this is why you didn't buy Apple when it was at $13 and had $6 in cash per share.
Now you think $600 and $100 in cash per share is "Expensive" for a company growing at %40 a year (or more.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky
I've always found that free advice was worth every penny I paid for it.
Really? Then you have no sense.
The value of the advice depends on the quality. Rejecting it based on the source is like saying you can't think for yourself.
I'm going to keep loading up on Apple stock while it stays within this P/E ratio. If it doesn't go up, I'm buying low. If it gets to $1000, I'll pair back and take some gains off the table.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity
Yeah. $200,000 is correct. 5% margin. Which equates to 20 X that which you could previously afford to buy(with plain jane shares).
Currencies are even 'better', I can buy $200,000 with just $1k then swap them for GBP at a later date when the exchange rate is in my favour.
Sounds like a good deal. I only get 2 X margin and 4 X margin for daytrades.
I gotta admit though, 20X margin sounds pretty scary. Aren't you worried about a margin call? There are periods where AAPL declines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ko024
You guys really need to educate yourselves. The term "law of large numbers" has almost replaced "that's so ironic" as being the most widely used saying that people use so incorrectly... Everyone seems to use "ironic" when they really mean coincidental... Not to say some people cant use it right. They usually just dont.. Same thing here with law of large numbers. Jesus.... the law of large numbers is a theorem that states that as your sample size increases, the likelihood that your average moves closer to the theoretical average increases. For example, if you roll two dice, the most likely average roll is 7. Do it 3 times and you may or may not see 7 come up most often. Do it 1,000,000 times and the likelihood that 7 is your average is great. That is the law of large numbers. You and everyone else in the media seems to want to use that term to say that apple has become too large. That means nothing.... Addressable market and market saturation are more relevant metrics... and clearly apple has room to grow in those regards... Please people... please do some research.. apple will go to 1,000... they WILL be the first trillion dollar company.. it is a fact.... get over it.. now you have two choices, you can either wait for that headline and say, aww man I should have bought when it was 600s... OR you can just buy the darn thing now, and be proud of yourself later.. and a little more rich......
ko024, while I agree that the term is probably misused, and may have been misused this time as well. There is still a relation to the "law of large numbers" and the statement that Apple will plateau (ie will not rise indefinitely.) The relation is that if make the reasonable assumption that the Apple's average stock price (over it's entire existence... future and past) is finite then it will "plateau" at some point. I'm not saying that point is higher or lower than $1,000.... I'm just staying that in order to have a finite average stock price it can not be monotonic from this point forward.
But I agree with your general statement. "law of large numbers" does not indicate when the plateau would occur (or its value.) It does speak to the notion that finite averages exclude monotonic increasing functions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Apple Is Doomed™.
"Apple is Doomed"®.
...Surely they have the registered trademark on this by now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ko024
You guys really need to educate yourselves. The term "law of large numbers" has almost replaced "that's so ironic" as being the most widely used saying that people use so incorrectly... Everyone seems to use "ironic" when they really mean coincidental... Not to say some people cant use it right. They usually just dont.. Same thing here with law of large numbers. Jesus.... the law of large numbers is a theorem that states that as your sample size increases, the likelihood that your average moves closer to the theoretical average increases. For example, if you roll two dice, the most likely average roll is 7. Do it 3 times and you may or may not see 7 come up most often. Do it 1,000,000 times and the likelihood that 7 is your average is great. That is the law of large numbers. You and everyone else in the media seems to want to use that term to say that apple has become too large. That means nothing.... Addressable market and market saturation are more relevant metrics... and clearly apple has room to grow in those regards... Please people... please do some research.. apple will go to 1,000... they WILL be the first trillion dollar company.. it is a fact.... get over it.. now you have two choices, you can either wait for that headline and say, aww man I should have bought when it was 600s... OR you can just buy the darn thing now, and be proud of yourself later.. and a little more rich......
Independent thought and critical reasoning are not allowed. You will be absorbed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh
No, it just means he has filled up his portfolio for this gyration... which seems to be what most of the pros have done over the past 3 trading days. That said, I don't believe in $1,000 in 12 months; it is possible in 24 if the dividend keeps increasing, but I think we are looking more like 30 months. 18% average annual return without any leverage.
Mark your calendar!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Sounds like a good deal. I only get 2 X margin and 4 X margin for daytrades.
I gotta admit though, 20X margin sounds pretty scary. Aren't you worried about a margin call? There are periods where AAPL declines.
I've have had a margin call quite a few times, my broker is pretty good and I can eat into that margin without them selling any of my Spreads. I get a little nervous at times, but have been watching AAPL for nearly 20 years and have got pretty used to the movements. I only ramp it up when I'm sure of a rise (such as today), but it means I no longer do much IOS programming as I have to watch the stocks constantly, which is a shame.
Yeah... I never said otherwise.