well go keep trusting 'beating expectations' as your guide. That may work for the short term but not the long term.
Really? My stock is up just a little bit since April 2004, when I bought most of what I have now. So I suppose you're right, I'm not doing too well with it.
Yeah ... and those messy splits ... no future in AAPL!
I agree with your general investment strategy, but sometimes it's prudent to realize some of your "winnings" and turn hypothetical money into real money. AAPL should continue to be a good bet for the next few years, but after 2020, when climate change starts to really bite . . .
OK - that's another forum/thread ;-)
If Hillary is elected, it'll be a long term negative for stockholders because she is loudly talking about raising capital gains taxes. I may decide to get out of stocks entirely at that time and retire.
Personally, I think Apple tends to fluctuate largely based on sentiment. There is little that can be rationally ascribed to their stock price beyond the fact that some people love 'em and some hate "em.
Yes, sentiment is a tribute to the irrational market theme. Most reasons for pricing is subjective. I consider it to be the "things are what they are" theory.
I agree with your general investment strategy, but sometimes it's prudent to realize some of your "winnings" and turn hypothetical money into real money. AAPL should continue to be a good bet for the next few years, but after 2020, when climate change starts to really bite . . .
OK - that's another forum/thread ;-)
I've done well because I've resisted that "sell some and realize your gains" argument. If I had done that, I would have considerably less of it now.
Can you prove that? It's theory that buybacks raise the stock price. I understand what a buyback does to equity per share. But, there is no single bit of solid evidence that it brings the price up permanently. I've seen many buybacks since I began investing back when I was a kid in 1963. None have ever reliably brought that price up, and had it stay there. It's a great deal of money that could otherwise be used to enhance the business.
I agree that there's no guarantee that buybacks raise the stock price. But surely any buying is a good thing (whether it's a buy back or other investors buying) is it not? It may not raise the stock price but it may keep it from falling, or not drop as much. Of course that, with the number of shares trading daily, buybacks may be drop in a bucket. But I think it may have a bigger psychological value - it discourages shorting and encourages staying long. I think that does much more for the stock than the buyback itself. I think of it as a service that the company can provide its loyal shareholders. Especially in Apple's case when there's such a huge disparity between the company's performance and the stock's performance. Yes it's a great deal of money but Apple wasn't going to use that money anyway, it would just be sitting in the bank. And it's not like they're not enhancing their business. They have (and continue to generate) plenty of money to do both ... and then some.
I've done well because I've resisted that "sell some and realize your gains" argument. If I had done that, I would have considerably less of it now.
I've never sold any. My only regret (if you can call it that) was that I purchased a relatively small amount originally...which then went on to gain 8,000+% (to date)... ????
I agree that there's no guarantee that buybacks raise the stock price. But surely any buying is a good thing (whether it's a buy back or other investors buying) is it not? It may not raise the stock price but it may keep it from falling, or not drop as much. Of course that, with the number of shares trading daily, buybacks may be drop in a bucket. But I think it may have a bigger psychological value - it discourages shorting and encourages staying long. I think that does much more for the stock than the buyback itself. I think of it as a service that the company can provide its loyal shareholders. Especially in Apple's case when there's such a huge disparity between the company's performance and the stock's performance. Yes it's a great deal of money but Apple wasn't going to use that money anyway, it would just be sitting in the bank. And it's not like they're not enhancing their business. They have (and continue to generate) plenty of money to do both ... and then some.
Look, I'll tell you who it benefits. It benefir those very large investors, and firms, that can make very quick massive trades before anyone else can. They benefit on small, short term rises and drops that we can never hope to manage. Read the link I posted above. Its not directly related, but it does give an idea how that happens.
I've never sold any. My only regret (if you can call it that) was that I purchased a relatively small amount originally...which then went on to gain 8,000+% (to date)... ????
I bought 5,000 shares back then in 2004. It didn't seem like a lot of money then. Well, it wasn't, at $16.93 a share. I've been sorry I didn't buy a lot more. I was going to buy 10,000, even more, but decided not to. Diversity, and all that. So it was fairly small investment for me. But it's become a big one over time.
I was looking for your definition of 'rational' markets.
(Add: Incidentally, the 'Incidental Economist' that you link to is a heath policy blog. I have absolutely no idea what that has to do with financial, esp. stock, markets),
"But if you ascribe to the OP's notion that AAPL is not currently a high-flying stock then I can't see how an extra $5.30 (about 4%) would make it so."
That was your comment making a statement as to what you thought I meant. I stated that I never said that. It was the proper response.
Well, since we're nitpicking...
You do realize that "you" doesn't necessarily mean you, right? Fine, I'll rephrase my comment:
"If someone, anyone, doesn't think that AAPL is currently high-flying stock then I can't see why they would think that and extra $5.30 would make it so."
So, where did you find this definition of rationality you say is widely accepted?
I posted that link above. It's a good one. Not too complex. Read through it. Do t argue it before you read the whole thing.
But really, surely you must the arguments for, and against the ration market, or, as some say, the rationality of the investment community. I shouldn't need to present an argument for you you heard it all before.
Cook should have just released Apple Watch numbers, his comment just made the situation worse, it's not like everyone doesn't know by now the numbers stink.
Maybe he can concentrate more on being CEO of Apple and less of an gay rights activist so my stock stops taking a pounding. God help us if iPhone sales ever tank.
At least in the U.S. market, I would expect that iPhone sales WILL decline without MAJOR tech improvements as the phone companies phase out phone subsidies. Even if they don't phase them out, there will simply be less of a reason to spend another $200-$300 on a new phone after two years because the newer model isn't going to provide much more than the past one did.
Almost $50 billion in revenue and people are complaining. Total insanity. I hear that if Apple has a few more great quarters, they're going to start buying some small countries.
You do realize that "you" doesn't necessarily mean you, right? Fine, I'll rephrase my comment:
"If someone, anyone, doesn't think that AAPL is currently high-flying stock then I can't see why they would think that and extra $5.30 would make it so."
Happy now?
It certainly read that way, since we were talking about it. But I suppose you can now state whatever you like about that.
At least in the U.S. market, I would expect that iPhone sales WILL decline without MAJOR tech improvements as the phone companies phase out phone subsidies. Even if they don't phase them out, there will simply be less of a reason to spend another $200-$300 on a new phone after two years because the newer model isn't going to provide much more than the past one did.
Almost $50 billion in revenue and people are complaining. Total insanity. I hear that if Apple has a few more great quarters, they're going to start buying some small countries.
That's a false argument. Right now, just like most every other phone on the planet, the iPhone is sold in many places. 75% of iPhone sales, according to Cook, a couple of quarters ago, when asked about that, are sold without subsidies. Just like most every other phone on the planet.
If subsidies everywhere are ended, the iPhone will be affected just like every other phone, and particularly like the ones that sell for the same price. So nothing changes, particularly since that would only affect 25% of phone sales.
But what would they do with all that money? They would have a good $300 billion now. There are a few fairly big aquisitions i would liked for them to have made.
It seems like it won't be that long before Apple will be worth less than the money they would have in the bank if they didn't pay any dividends or do buybacks.
Not just. Reported EPS was only $0.04 over consensus. Anything less than a 10% beat is considered disappointing, not just for Apple but in general. Quarter after quarter you can depend on this but for some reason it's always treated as a huge surprise if not a conspiracy.
Comments
Yeah ... and those messy splits ... no future in AAPL!
If Hillary is elected, it'll be a long term negative for stockholders because she is loudly talking about raising capital gains taxes. I may decide to get out of stocks entirely at that time and retire.
Personally, I think Apple tends to fluctuate largely based on sentiment. There is little that can be rationally ascribed to their stock price beyond the fact that some people love 'em and some hate "em.
Yes, sentiment is a tribute to the irrational market theme. Most reasons for pricing is subjective. I consider it to be the "things are what they are" theory.
Don't forget the "/s"!
I agree with your general investment strategy, but sometimes it's prudent to realize some of your "winnings" and turn hypothetical money into real money. AAPL should continue to be a good bet for the next few years, but after 2020, when climate change starts to really bite . . .
OK - that's another forum/thread ;-)
I've done well because I've resisted that "sell some and realize your gains" argument. If I had done that, I would have considerably less of it now.
O, sure ... here's the Big Red S:
/
Can you prove that? It's theory that buybacks raise the stock price. I understand what a buyback does to equity per share. But, there is no single bit of solid evidence that it brings the price up permanently. I've seen many buybacks since I began investing back when I was a kid in 1963. None have ever reliably brought that price up, and had it stay there. It's a great deal of money that could otherwise be used to enhance the business.
I agree that there's no guarantee that buybacks raise the stock price. But surely any buying is a good thing (whether it's a buy back or other investors buying) is it not? It may not raise the stock price but it may keep it from falling, or not drop as much. Of course that, with the number of shares trading daily, buybacks may be drop in a bucket. But I think it may have a bigger psychological value - it discourages shorting and encourages staying long. I think that does much more for the stock than the buyback itself. I think of it as a service that the company can provide its loyal shareholders. Especially in Apple's case when there's such a huge disparity between the company's performance and the stock's performance. Yes it's a great deal of money but Apple wasn't going to use that money anyway, it would just be sitting in the bank. And it's not like they're not enhancing their business. They have (and continue to generate) plenty of money to do both ... and then some.
This is a vey good, and simple, explaination of efficient(?) markets, and in the end, how rationality, or lack thereof, effects that efficiency.
http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/efficiency-and-rationality-in-financial-markets/
I've never sold any. My only regret (if you can call it that) was that I purchased a relatively small amount originally...which then went on to gain 8,000+% (to date)... ????
I agree that there's no guarantee that buybacks raise the stock price. But surely any buying is a good thing (whether it's a buy back or other investors buying) is it not? It may not raise the stock price but it may keep it from falling, or not drop as much. Of course that, with the number of shares trading daily, buybacks may be drop in a bucket. But I think it may have a bigger psychological value - it discourages shorting and encourages staying long. I think that does much more for the stock than the buyback itself. I think of it as a service that the company can provide its loyal shareholders. Especially in Apple's case when there's such a huge disparity between the company's performance and the stock's performance. Yes it's a great deal of money but Apple wasn't going to use that money anyway, it would just be sitting in the bank. And it's not like they're not enhancing their business. They have (and continue to generate) plenty of money to do both ... and then some.
Look, I'll tell you who it benefits. It benefir those very large investors, and firms, that can make very quick massive trades before anyone else can. They benefit on small, short term rises and drops that we can never hope to manage. Read the link I posted above. Its not directly related, but it does give an idea how that happens.
Did I use the word "efficiency"? We were talking about rationality. Efficiency in the markets is the result of rationality, or lack of it.
So, where did you find this definition of rationality you say is widely accepted?
I've never sold any. My only regret (if you can call it that) was that I purchased a relatively small amount originally...which then went on to gain 8,000+% (to date)... ????
I bought 5,000 shares back then in 2004. It didn't seem like a lot of money then. Well, it wasn't, at $16.93 a share. I've been sorry I didn't buy a lot more. I was going to buy 10,000, even more, but decided not to. Diversity, and all that. So it was fairly small investment for me. But it's become a big one over time.
This is a vey good, and simple, explaination of efficient(?) markets, and in the end, how rationality, or lack thereof, effects that efficiency.
http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/efficiency-and-rationality-in-financial-markets/
I know exactly what 'efficient' markets are.
I was looking for your definition of 'rational' markets.
(Add: Incidentally, the 'Incidental Economist' that you link to is a heath policy blog. I have absolutely no idea what that has to do with financial, esp. stock, markets),
"But if you ascribe to the OP's notion that AAPL is not currently a high-flying stock then I can't see how an extra $5.30 (about 4%) would make it so."
That was your comment making a statement as to what you thought I meant. I stated that I never said that. It was the proper response.
Well, since we're nitpicking...
You do realize that "you" doesn't necessarily mean you, right? Fine, I'll rephrase my comment:
"If someone, anyone, doesn't think that AAPL is currently high-flying stock then I can't see why they would think that and extra $5.30 would make it so."
Happy now?
I posted that link above. It's a good one. Not too complex. Read through it. Do t argue it before you read the whole thing.
But really, surely you must the arguments for, and against the ration market, or, as some say, the rationality of the investment community. I shouldn't need to present an argument for you you heard it all before.
Cook should have just released Apple Watch numbers, his comment just made the situation worse, it's not like everyone doesn't know by now the numbers stink.
Maybe he can concentrate more on being CEO of Apple and less of an gay rights activist so my stock stops taking a pounding. God help us if iPhone sales ever tank.
At least in the U.S. market, I would expect that iPhone sales WILL decline without MAJOR tech improvements as the phone companies phase out phone subsidies. Even if they don't phase them out, there will simply be less of a reason to spend another $200-$300 on a new phone after two years because the newer model isn't going to provide much more than the past one did.
Almost $50 billion in revenue and people are complaining. Total insanity. I hear that if Apple has a few more great quarters, they're going to start buying some small countries.
It certainly read that way, since we were talking about it. But I suppose you can now state whatever you like about that.
That's a false argument. Right now, just like most every other phone on the planet, the iPhone is sold in many places. 75% of iPhone sales, according to Cook, a couple of quarters ago, when asked about that, are sold without subsidies. Just like most every other phone on the planet.
If subsidies everywhere are ended, the iPhone will be affected just like every other phone, and particularly like the ones that sell for the same price. So nothing changes, particularly since that would only affect 25% of phone sales.
But what would they do with all that money? They would have a good $300 billion now. There are a few fairly big aquisitions i would liked for them to have made.
It seems like it won't be that long before Apple will be worth less than the money they would have in the bank if they didn't pay any dividends or do buybacks.
Here's why the numbers are dropping after hours.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-logs-q3-beat--but-q4-sales-outlook-disappoints--204759056.html
Not just. Reported EPS was only $0.04 over consensus. Anything less than a 10% beat is considered disappointing, not just for Apple but in general. Quarter after quarter you can depend on this but for some reason it's always treated as a huge surprise if not a conspiracy.