But are all of Apple's overseas entities reported on and considered under your notion of 'company'?
Quote:
In total, from 2002 to 2013, an estimated $8.9 billion of Australian income has been shifted to Ireland.
The 2000-09 accounts filed with ASIC are believed to be the only time Apple has revealed ASI’s earnings.
Apple Sales International’s 2009 accounts state: “The company is not tax resident in any jurisdiction .?.?. The average tax rate for all jurisdictions in which it operates is approximately 4 per cent."
In its ASIC filings the company reported pre-tax earnings outside the US of $US4 billion in 2009 and calculated that 4 per cent tax would be $US160 million. The accounts show the actual tax paid was only $US3.65 million.
While many media reports about Apple have referred to its use of the so-called “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich" tax structure to avoid tax, Sydney University’s Dr Ting said there was no evidence from the US Senate Committee report that Apple needed to use this.
Dr Ting, whose analysis of what he calls “iTax" will be published in British Tax Review this month, points to testimony by Apple chief executive Tim Cook, who told the committee last May, “Apple has always believed in the simple, not the complex. This is evident in the company’s products and the way it conducts itself."
Apple’s iTax, as Dr Ting describes it, is simplicity itself. Apple Sales International and its parent, Apple Operations International, pay no tax in Ireland, according to Irish law, because they are managed and controlled in California. They pay no US tax either because US law disregards where a company is managed and only looks at where a company is legally registered.
Thus none of the profits which Apple moves to Ireland from Australia and elsewhere are taxable. The Irish government last month moved to close this “double-non-taxation" loophole but the new laws will still allow Apple to choose where its tax residence is – for example Bermuda, which has no corporate tax, or Singapore. From 2010 Apple began rerouting its sales to Australia from Apple Sales International via a new Singapore subsidiary, Apple South Asia Pte Ltd.
Apple South Asia’s 2011 accounts note that on March 24, 2010, the company was granted a 10-year development and expansion incentive under which income would be taxed at 5 per cent instead of 17 per cent. This was then renegotiated even further, with Apple to be taxed “at various concessionary rates".
Might you be confusing paid, actual cash went to the US government, with an obligation to pay if/when profits are transferred to the account of Apple US? In addition you almost certainly are aware that two of the three Irish subsidiaries have no tax obligations to anyone since they have no tax residency in any country. Theres's $10's of billions in profit you don't seem to be accounting for. It's tax-free money thru a creative and unique method of tax avoidance. There's no 20% being paid on it, not even 5%.
You're at this again. It was all explained to you the last time.
You've no idea how net income is calculated for the purposes of reporting, do you? (And, no please, I am not going to do it).
But are all of Apple's overseas entities reported on and considered under your notion of 'company'?
Quote:
In total, from 2002 to 2013, an estimated $8.9 billion of Australian income has been shifted to Ireland.
The 2000-09 accounts filed with ASIC are believed to be the only time Apple has revealed ASI’s earnings.
Apple Sales International’s 2009 accounts state: “The company is not tax resident in any jurisdiction .?.?. The average tax rate for all jurisdictions in which it operates is approximately 4 per cent."
In its ASIC filings the company reported pre-tax earnings outside the US of $US4 billion in 2009 and calculated that 4 per cent tax would be $US160 million. The accounts show the actual tax paid was only $US3.65 million.
While many media reports about Apple have referred to its use of the so-called “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich" tax structure to avoid tax, Sydney University’s Dr Ting said there was no evidence from the US Senate Committee report that Apple needed to use this.
Dr Ting, whose analysis of what he calls “iTax" will be published in British Tax Review this month, points to testimony by Apple chief executive Tim Cook, who told the committee last May, “Apple has always believed in the simple, not the complex. This is evident in the company’s products and the way it conducts itself."
Apple’s iTax, as Dr Ting describes it, is simplicity itself. Apple Sales International and its parent, Apple Operations International, pay no tax in Ireland, according to Irish law, because they are managed and controlled in California. They pay no US tax either because US law disregards where a company is managed and only looks at where a company is legally registered.
Thus none of the profits which Apple moves to Ireland from Australia and elsewhere are taxable. The Irish government last month moved to close this “double-non-taxation" loophole but the new laws will still allow Apple to choose where its tax residence is – for example Bermuda, which has no corporate tax, or Singapore. From 2010 Apple began rerouting its sales to Australia from Apple Sales International via a new Singapore subsidiary, Apple South Asia Pte Ltd.
Apple South Asia’s 2011 accounts note that on March 24, 2010, the company was granted a 10-year development and expansion incentive under which income would be taxed at 5 per cent instead of 17 per cent. This was then renegotiated even further, with Apple to be taxed “at various concessionary rates".
Aren't you the guy that thinks it's all a bubble "disaster waiting to happen" anyway (see above)?" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
I am surprised you care about something as mundane as net income and taxes. Weird.
So you show us a chart going back to 1920 of the Dow Jones, which is not a good indicator of the broad market and you say the stock market will crash. I mean really? That's your 'proof' the market will crash?
A way better metric is the S&P500. From 2005-2015 the S&P is up 60%, or less than 5% annualized. Does that sound like a bubble to you? The PE ratio of the S&P500 is 18. Corps are making record profits and have hundreds of billions in cash. The economy is growing 3% and China's economy is growing 6%. So tell me exactly why doom is impending?
Ok, here is your S&P500
Up, down, up, down, up... and logically the continuation of that sequence is up forever. Silly me, how could I not see the obvious.
If you start at 1995 and look at the average annual rate of growth of the positive slopes on the chart, it's 17.5%, which is unsustainable, hence the corrections. The average rate of annual increase since 1995, taking all years into account, is 9.6%, which is near double this 5% you are touting.
If you can look at that chart, of the very index you said I should have originally focused on, and genuinely can not see a repeating pattern, then we clearly have irreconcilable perceptions.
China is not growing at 6%, it's closer to dead in the water. A week ago you said it was 7.1%
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
Quote:
China’s first-quarter GDP data has fueled fresh skepticism about the reliability of the nation’s official statistics, with some experts saying that the actual growth could be much worse than the officially reported figure of 7 percent.
Citibank, in a recent report, said it believes that actual quarterly growth could be below 6 percent year to year, depending on the factors weighed, the Wall Street Journal reported.
Other research firms put their numbers far lower, with Capital Economics pegging the growth at 4.9 percent and the Conference Board’s China Center at 4 percent, the report noted
Many had predicted a lower rate of growth and some have raised doubts over reliability of official numbers
...
However, there were immediate doubts over the growth figure’s reliability with the announcement sparking renewed debate over the trustworthiness of Beijing’s statistics.
The fact that the figure was exactly in line with the Communist party’s 2015 full-year growth target “raises suspicions,” said Yang. “There is the issue of credibility, certainly.”
If you really believe this -- and are not just spouting off -- you can profit from it. You know, put your money where your mouth is. Buy long-term index puts.
Don't you want to become more wealthy? Why don't/won't you do it?
(Fixed a typo).
I don't really understand these puts too well. I imagine you would need some degree of accuracy in predicting the time of the correction event. I am not confident I could do that. I am putting my money where my mouth is, but in an entirely different manner.
Yes, I want to become more wealthy, but I don't think gambling with someone who has the capacity to rig the game is a prudent way to do that.
I know you know just a little about economics and am therefore quite confident you have probably heard of Mohamed El-Erian. If your position/opinion - which you pointedly have not stated - is that there is no bubble and that equities are not overvalued - then you are at odds with his opinion. What actually is your opinion?
Quote:
Q. Where is your money? Stocks? Treasuries? Bonds?
A. It is mostly concentrated in cash. That’s not great, given that it gets eaten up by inflation. But I think most asset prices have been pushed by central banks to very elevated levels.
Q. So we’re nearing a bubble?
A. Go back to central banks. Central banks look at growth, at employment, at wages. They are too low. They don’t have the instruments they need, but they feel obliged to do something. So they artificially lift asset prices by maintaining zero interest rates and by using their balance sheet to buy assets.
Why? Because they hope that they will trigger what’s called the wealth effect. That you will open your 401k, see it has gone up in price, and you’ll spend. And that companies will see their shares are going up and they will be more willing to invest. But there is a massive gap right now between asset prices and fundamentals.
I don't really understand these puts too well. I imagine you would need some degree of accuracy in predicting the time of the correction event. I am not confident I could do that. I am putting my money where my mouth is, but in an entirely different manner.
Yes, I want to become more wealthy, but I don't think gambling with someone who has the capacity to rig the game is a prudent way to do that.
I know you know just a little about economics and am therefore quite confident you have probably heard of Mohamed El-Erian. If your position/opinion - which you pointedly have not stated - is that there is no bubble and that equities are not overvalued - then you are at odds with his opinion. What actually is your opinion?
Q. Where is your money? Stocks? Treasuries? Bonds?
A. It is mostly concentrated in cash. That’s not great, given that it gets eaten up by inflation. But I think most asset prices have been pushed by central banks to very elevated levels.
Q. So we’re nearing a bubble?
A. Go back to central banks. Central banks look at growth, at employment, at wages. They are too low. They don’t have the instruments they need, but they feel obliged to do something. So they artificially lift asset prices by maintaining zero interest rates and by using their balance sheet to buy assets.
Why? Because they hope that they will trigger what’s called the wealth effect. That you will open your 401k, see it has gone up in price, and you’ll spend. And that companies will see their shares are going up and they will be more willing to invest. But there is a massive gap right now between asset prices and fundamentals.
You seem pretty keen to mock me. Do you equally mock his opinions?
I've heard of El-Erian. Super smart guy. What's his track record?
Mock you? No, ask you to explain the basis for your ill-founded views about market behavior and stocks. You throw out a chart, make some wild claims about market participants being cons (or agreeing with it, anyway) and then throw out some verbiage. (That reminds me: why is that market participant you quote, El-Erian, not a con?).
If you want to stick with cash, that's your prerogative. Do so, by all means. Don't ignorantly and presumptuously -- with the shallowest of commentary -- knock long term investments in the stock market, investments that have created massive amounts of wealth for massive numbers of people around the globe. Including, in my case, owning my house, putting my kids through (private) college, saving up very healthily for retirement, and leaving enough for a decent bequest for my kids and some decent donation to a good charity when I go. None of which I would have been able to do to the same extent if I'd stayed in cash.
I've heard of El-Erian. Super smart guy. What's his track record?
Mock you? No, ask you to explain the basis for your ill-founded views about market behavior and stocks. You throw out a chart, make some wild claims about market participants being cons (or agreeing with it, anyway) and then throw out some verbiage. (That reminds me: why is that market participant you quote, El-Erian, not a con?).
If you want to stick with cash, that's your prerogative. Do so, by all means. Don't ignorantly and presumptuously -- with the shallowest of commentary -- knock long term investments in the stock market, investments that have created massive amounts of wealth for massive numbers of people around the globe. Including, in my case, owning my house, putting my kids through (private) college, saving up very healthily for retirement, and leaving enough for a decent bequest for my kids and some decent donation to a good charity when I go. None of which I would have been able to do to the same extent if I'd stayed in cash.
You have not answered my question and you are putting words in my mouth. I have not knocked long term investments in equities. I have said I think that currently the US equity market is seriously overvalued and represents a bubble. I am not invested in that market but I have an interest as an observer due to the global knock on that usually follows its major excursions. If I did have major investments in that market, I think I would be withdrawing to cash and waiting to re-enter it after the next correction, which given todays slump, may already be underway.
You have not answered my question and you are putting words in my mouth. I have not knocked long term investments in equities. I have said I think that currently the US equity market is seriously overvalued and represents a bubble. I am not invested in that market but I have an interest as an observer due to the global knock on that usually follows its major excursions. If I did have major investments in that market, I think I would be withdrawing to cash and waiting to re-enter it after the next correction, which given todays slump, may already be underway.
What question was that? It was very difficult to see in the midst of a lot of verbiage. If it is, "what is your opinion [of the market]?" my unambiguous answer is: given my estimates of expected future cash flows, likely long-run growth, and equity risk premia, the market is quite fairly valued at this point, with perhaps a lot of upside potential.
For some stocks in it like Apple, IBM, Disney, etc. that potential is immense. For other stocks in it like TSLA, LNKD, NFLX, AMZN (I could go on), I think the opposite is the case.
I am putting words in your mouth? You're the one that made outlandish claims and forecasts like: "Up, down, up, down, up... and logically the continuation of that sequence is up forever. Silly me, how could I not see the obvious." and "The US stock market is a disaster waiting to happen. It is a fat bloated bubble just waiting for the right pin." and "It wouldn't surprise me if some engineers were out yesterday trying to erect a floor at 16000..." and so on, with ZERO evidence or discussion of fundamentals. Just a couple of graphs thrown in for effect.
Here are some simple, well-known secrets; take it for what it's worth, since I am not sure I want to spend too much more time on this conversation (although I'd be very happy to give you some excellent and accessible readings if you'd care to know): (i) if you want to get higher returns, you're going to have to take on higher risk; (ii) stocks have handily outperformed bonds (leave alone cash) over the long haul (almost always for horizons greater than ten years, and for a vast preponderance of five-year horizons); (iii) value stocks handily outperform growth stocks over the long haul; (iv) you'd be foolish not have a long horizon; (v) you'd be foolish to not diversify for the serious money in your life; (vi) analyst forecasts amount to a hill of beans, and they don't know much more about the market than you and me and the aggregate of market participants do; (vii) if you cannot be disciplined, patient, and willing to tolerate risk, the stock market is not for you; (viii) there is no grand conspiracy.
It's easy. Broadcast a bunch of bogus information saying Apple is not selling products very well and watch AAPL tank. It happens all the time. Manipulating a large company like Apple is very easy and is done all the time. Just look for at all the people who try to short AAPL. The easiest way to make money on a short is to make up information, send the tip to a few analysts and watch the storm begin.
Comments
based on Apple's company wide tax rate of 25%
But are all of Apple's overseas entities reported on and considered under your notion of 'company'?
In total, from 2002 to 2013, an estimated $8.9 billion of Australian income has been shifted to Ireland.
The 2000-09 accounts filed with ASIC are believed to be the only time Apple has revealed ASI’s earnings.
Apple Sales International’s 2009 accounts state: “The company is not tax resident in any jurisdiction .?.?. The average tax rate for all jurisdictions in which it operates is approximately 4 per cent."
In its ASIC filings the company reported pre-tax earnings outside the US of $US4 billion in 2009 and calculated that 4 per cent tax would be $US160 million. The accounts show the actual tax paid was only $US3.65 million.
While many media reports about Apple have referred to its use of the so-called “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich" tax structure to avoid tax, Sydney University’s Dr Ting said there was no evidence from the US Senate Committee report that Apple needed to use this.
Dr Ting, whose analysis of what he calls “iTax" will be published in British Tax Review this month, points to testimony by Apple chief executive Tim Cook, who told the committee last May, “Apple has always believed in the simple, not the complex. This is evident in the company’s products and the way it conducts itself."
Apple’s iTax, as Dr Ting describes it, is simplicity itself. Apple Sales International and its parent, Apple Operations International, pay no tax in Ireland, according to Irish law, because they are managed and controlled in California. They pay no US tax either because US law disregards where a company is managed and only looks at where a company is legally registered.
Thus none of the profits which Apple moves to Ireland from Australia and elsewhere are taxable. The Irish government last month moved to close this “double-non-taxation" loophole but the new laws will still allow Apple to choose where its tax residence is – for example Bermuda, which has no corporate tax, or Singapore. From 2010 Apple began rerouting its sales to Australia from Apple Sales International via a new Singapore subsidiary, Apple South Asia Pte Ltd.
Apple South Asia’s 2011 accounts note that on March 24, 2010, the company was granted a 10-year development and expansion incentive under which income would be taxed at 5 per cent instead of 17 per cent. This was then renegotiated even further, with Apple to be taxed “at various concessionary rates".
http://www.afr.com/news/politics/national/how-ireland-got-apples-9bn-profit-20140305-j7cxm
Might you be confusing paid, actual cash went to the US government, with an obligation to pay if/when profits are transferred to the account of Apple US? In addition you almost certainly are aware that two of the three Irish subsidiaries have no tax obligations to anyone since they have no tax residency in any country. Theres's $10's of billions in profit you don't seem to be accounting for. It's tax-free money thru a creative and unique method of tax avoidance. There's no 20% being paid on it, not even 5%.
You're at this again. It was all explained to you the last time.
You've no idea how net income is calculated for the purposes of reporting, do you? (And, no please, I am not going to do it).
based on Apple's company wide tax rate of 25%
But are all of Apple's overseas entities reported on and considered under your notion of 'company'?
In total, from 2002 to 2013, an estimated $8.9 billion of Australian income has been shifted to Ireland.
The 2000-09 accounts filed with ASIC are believed to be the only time Apple has revealed ASI’s earnings.
Apple Sales International’s 2009 accounts state: “The company is not tax resident in any jurisdiction .?.?. The average tax rate for all jurisdictions in which it operates is approximately 4 per cent."
In its ASIC filings the company reported pre-tax earnings outside the US of $US4 billion in 2009 and calculated that 4 per cent tax would be $US160 million. The accounts show the actual tax paid was only $US3.65 million.
While many media reports about Apple have referred to its use of the so-called “Double Irish Dutch Sandwich" tax structure to avoid tax, Sydney University’s Dr Ting said there was no evidence from the US Senate Committee report that Apple needed to use this.
Dr Ting, whose analysis of what he calls “iTax" will be published in British Tax Review this month, points to testimony by Apple chief executive Tim Cook, who told the committee last May, “Apple has always believed in the simple, not the complex. This is evident in the company’s products and the way it conducts itself."
Apple’s iTax, as Dr Ting describes it, is simplicity itself. Apple Sales International and its parent, Apple Operations International, pay no tax in Ireland, according to Irish law, because they are managed and controlled in California. They pay no US tax either because US law disregards where a company is managed and only looks at where a company is legally registered.
Thus none of the profits which Apple moves to Ireland from Australia and elsewhere are taxable. The Irish government last month moved to close this “double-non-taxation" loophole but the new laws will still allow Apple to choose where its tax residence is – for example Bermuda, which has no corporate tax, or Singapore. From 2010 Apple began rerouting its sales to Australia from Apple Sales International via a new Singapore subsidiary, Apple South Asia Pte Ltd.
Apple South Asia’s 2011 accounts note that on March 24, 2010, the company was granted a 10-year development and expansion incentive under which income would be taxed at 5 per cent instead of 17 per cent. This was then renegotiated even further, with Apple to be taxed “at various concessionary rates".
http://www.afr.com/news/politics/national/how-ireland-got-apples-9bn-profit-20140305-j7cxm
Aren't you the guy that thinks it's all a bubble "disaster waiting to happen" anyway (see above)?
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
I am surprised you care about something as mundane as net income and taxes. Weird.
Good luck! I'm not confident enough to match your bet - but I do think it has a chance,
Market couldn't even hold a one day rally. I know it's bad when my Best Buy stock was the best performer of the day.
So you show us a chart going back to 1920 of the Dow Jones, which is not a good indicator of the broad market and you say the stock market will crash. I mean really? That's your 'proof' the market will crash?
A way better metric is the S&P500. From 2005-2015 the S&P is up 60%, or less than 5% annualized. Does that sound like a bubble to you? The PE ratio of the S&P500 is 18. Corps are making record profits and have hundreds of billions in cash. The economy is growing 3% and China's economy is growing 6%. So tell me exactly why doom is impending?
Ok, here is your S&P500
Up, down, up, down, up... and logically the continuation of that sequence is up forever. Silly me, how could I not see the obvious.
If you start at 1995 and look at the average annual rate of growth of the positive slopes on the chart, it's 17.5%, which is unsustainable, hence the corrections. The average rate of annual increase since 1995, taking all years into account, is 9.6%, which is near double this 5% you are touting.
If you can look at that chart, of the very index you said I should have originally focused on, and genuinely can not see a repeating pattern, then we clearly have irreconcilable perceptions.
China is not growing at 6%, it's closer to dead in the water. A week ago you said it was 7.1%
China’s first-quarter GDP data has fueled fresh skepticism about the reliability of the nation’s official statistics, with some experts saying that the actual growth could be much worse than the officially reported figure of 7 percent.
Citibank, in a recent report, said it believes that actual quarterly growth could be below 6 percent year to year, depending on the factors weighed, the Wall Street Journal reported.
Other research firms put their numbers far lower, with Capital Economics pegging the growth at 4.9 percent and the Conference Board’s China Center at 4 percent, the report notedhttp://www.ejinsight.com/20150427-china-gdp-fuels-fresh-doubts-about-reliability-of-official-data/
And that was back in April. More currently:
China surprises economists with GDP rise of 7%
Many had predicted a lower rate of growth and some have raised doubts over reliability of official numbers
...
However, there were immediate doubts over the growth figure’s reliability with the announcement sparking renewed debate over the trustworthiness of Beijing’s statistics.
The fact that the figure was exactly in line with the Communist party’s 2015 full-year growth target “raises suspicions,” said Yang. “There is the issue of credibility, certainly.”http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/15/china-surprises-economists-with-gdp-rise-of-7
Ah, Wells Fargo, the company that addresses "Defect fixes" in their mobile apps.
If you really believe this -- and are not just spouting off -- you can profit from it. You know, put your money where your mouth is. Buy long-term index puts.
Don't you want to become more wealthy? Why don't/won't you do it?
(Fixed a typo).
I don't really understand these puts too well. I imagine you would need some degree of accuracy in predicting the time of the correction event. I am not confident I could do that. I am putting my money where my mouth is, but in an entirely different manner.
Yes, I want to become more wealthy, but I don't think gambling with someone who has the capacity to rig the game is a prudent way to do that.
I know you know just a little about economics and am therefore quite confident you have probably heard of Mohamed El-Erian. If your position/opinion - which you pointedly have not stated - is that there is no bubble and that equities are not overvalued - then you are at odds with his opinion. What actually is your opinion?
A. It is mostly concentrated in cash. That’s not great, given that it gets eaten up by inflation. But I think most asset prices have been pushed by central banks to very elevated levels.
Q. So we’re nearing a bubble?
A. Go back to central banks. Central banks look at growth, at employment, at wages. They are too low. They don’t have the instruments they need, but they feel obliged to do something. So they artificially lift asset prices by maintaining zero interest rates and by using their balance sheet to buy assets.
Why? Because they hope that they will trigger what’s called the wealth effect. That you will open your 401k, see it has gone up in price, and you’ll spend. And that companies will see their shares are going up and they will be more willing to invest. But there is a massive gap right now between asset prices and fundamentals.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/pimco-656718-erian-people.html
You seem pretty keen to mock me. Do you equally mock him?
I've heard of El-Erian. Super smart guy. What's his track record?
Mock you? No, ask you to explain the basis for your ill-founded views about market behavior and stocks. You throw out a chart, make some wild claims about market participants being cons (or agreeing with it, anyway) and then throw out some verbiage. (That reminds me: why is that market participant you quote, El-Erian, not a con?).
If you want to stick with cash, that's your prerogative. Do so, by all means. Don't ignorantly and presumptuously -- with the shallowest of commentary -- knock long term investments in the stock market, investments that have created massive amounts of wealth for massive numbers of people around the globe. Including, in my case, owning my house, putting my kids through (private) college, saving up very healthily for retirement, and leaving enough for a decent bequest for my kids and some decent donation to a good charity when I go. None of which I would have been able to do to the same extent if I'd stayed in cash.
I've heard of El-Erian. Super smart guy. What's his track record?
Mock you? No, ask you to explain the basis for your ill-founded views about market behavior and stocks. You throw out a chart, make some wild claims about market participants being cons (or agreeing with it, anyway) and then throw out some verbiage. (That reminds me: why is that market participant you quote, El-Erian, not a con?).
If you want to stick with cash, that's your prerogative. Do so, by all means. Don't ignorantly and presumptuously -- with the shallowest of commentary -- knock long term investments in the stock market, investments that have created massive amounts of wealth for massive numbers of people around the globe. Including, in my case, owning my house, putting my kids through (private) college, saving up very healthily for retirement, and leaving enough for a decent bequest for my kids and some decent donation to a good charity when I go. None of which I would have been able to do to the same extent if I'd stayed in cash.
You have not answered my question and you are putting words in my mouth. I have not knocked long term investments in equities. I have said I think that currently the US equity market is seriously overvalued and represents a bubble. I am not invested in that market but I have an interest as an observer due to the global knock on that usually follows its major excursions. If I did have major investments in that market, I think I would be withdrawing to cash and waiting to re-enter it after the next correction, which given todays slump, may already be underway.
You have not answered my question and you are putting words in my mouth. I have not knocked long term investments in equities. I have said I think that currently the US equity market is seriously overvalued and represents a bubble. I am not invested in that market but I have an interest as an observer due to the global knock on that usually follows its major excursions. If I did have major investments in that market, I think I would be withdrawing to cash and waiting to re-enter it after the next correction, which given todays slump, may already be underway.
What question was that? It was very difficult to see in the midst of a lot of verbiage. If it is, "what is your opinion [of the market]?" my unambiguous answer is: given my estimates of expected future cash flows, likely long-run growth, and equity risk premia, the market is quite fairly valued at this point, with perhaps a lot of upside potential.
For some stocks in it like Apple, IBM, Disney, etc. that potential is immense. For other stocks in it like TSLA, LNKD, NFLX, AMZN (I could go on), I think the opposite is the case.
I am putting words in your mouth? You're the one that made outlandish claims and forecasts like: "Up, down, up, down, up... and logically the continuation of that sequence is up forever. Silly me, how could I not see the obvious." and "The US stock market is a disaster waiting to happen. It is a fat bloated bubble just waiting for the right pin." and "It wouldn't surprise me if some engineers were out yesterday trying to erect a floor at 16000..." and so on, with ZERO evidence or discussion of fundamentals. Just a couple of graphs thrown in for effect.
Here are some simple, well-known secrets; take it for what it's worth, since I am not sure I want to spend too much more time on this conversation (although I'd be very happy to give you some excellent and accessible readings if you'd care to know): (i) if you want to get higher returns, you're going to have to take on higher risk; (ii) stocks have handily outperformed bonds (leave alone cash) over the long haul (almost always for horizons greater than ten years, and for a vast preponderance of five-year horizons); (iii) value stocks handily outperform growth stocks over the long haul; (iv) you'd be foolish not have a long horizon; (v) you'd be foolish to not diversify for the serious money in your life; (vi) analyst forecasts amount to a hill of beans, and they don't know much more about the market than you and me and the aggregate of market participants do; (vii) if you cannot be disciplined, patient, and willing to tolerate risk, the stock market is not for you; (viii) there is no grand conspiracy.
And, that advice is free.
The SEC is not bent out of shape.
yellow journalist who hate Apple are
oh, okay. thanks for clarifying that big guy.
LOL...
How does one manipulate the stock of a 700B co?
LOL...
How does one manipulate the stock of a 700B co?
It's easy. Broadcast a bunch of bogus information saying Apple is not selling products very well and watch AAPL tank. It happens all the time. Manipulating a large company like Apple is very easy and is done all the time. Just look for at all the people who try to short AAPL. The easiest way to make money on a short is to make up information, send the tip to a few analysts and watch the storm begin.