WSJ jumps on iPhone X production cut story, adds new fictions

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 45
    Apple buys back its own stock. Now it can buy more shares for the same amount (as can anyone, of course, if they wish). This is positive for shareholders, as opposed to traders who may be scared into abandoning the trade with a loss. For the manipulators to gain, traders have to lose. For the rest of us, regret about not timing the market perfectly is unwise. Even Buffett cannot time the market, and he doesn't even think about it.
    JWSCradarthekatbshank
  • Reply 22 of 45
    HyperealityHypereality Posts: 35unconfirmed, member
    Yep,  I bought Apple yesterday and again today. I doubt if it will go a lot lower. 

    Interestingly in a video I saw last week an analyst said he thought AAPL could hit 165 but that it was very difficult to make money trading Apple as it tends to bounce up again quickly.  I mostly hold AAPL but I do trade a little, selling over 178 and buying under 169 will make me a few bob, but will hardly make millions.  Its tempting to trade it because its so predictable that these stories depress the stock almost like clockwork,  the psychology of these shares is fairly unique in the market.  Apple's brand has seemed to make this kind of narrative viable in a way its not about almost any other company on the market. 


  • Reply 23 of 45
    toddzrxtoddzrx Posts: 194member
    Hahahaha!  Funny to see the libs come out and defend Apple over fake news, but trash Trump when he declares a story is fake.  What a bunch of hypocrites!
    williamlondon
  • Reply 24 of 45
    toddzrx said:
    Hahahaha!  Funny to see the libs come out and defend Apple over fake news, but trash Trump when he declares a story is fake.  What a bunch of hypocrites!
    There has always been BS news reports. 

    And there are some false or exaggerated stories about Trump. But most of the coverage of the president is outrageous because it is true. He's on record, on video, that anyone can look at, and realize who he is, what kind of person he is, what he thinks, who he hates, who he treats without any respect, and how little of any real plan he has about anything. 

    What Trump and his supporters should really think about, is not the news of today that will be forgotten tomorrow, but how his actual behavior will be memorialized in the future as being a period of American decline globally, and a collapse in decorum, morals, intelligence, competency and respectability at home in the USA. If you think "liberals" in the news media are giving Trump a hard time, wait till you find out who writes respected history and who makes movies. Hint: it's not AM outrage radio jockeys and televangelists.
    williamlondonradarthekatMacProRayz2016singularitybshankwatto_cobrabadmonk
  • Reply 25 of 45
    toddzrx said:
    Hahahaha!  Funny to see the libs come out and defend Apple over fake news, but trash Trump when he declares a story is fake.  What a bunch of hypocrites!
    Nonsense. It all depends on the story, dur. Much of Trump’s claims are proven false. 

    We’re discussing Apple here, not party politics, btw. 
    williamlondonMacProbshankwatto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 45
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 367member
    Noam Chomsky used to say that some of the most accurate papers are the financial ones, like the WSJ and FT, because the markets *require* accuracy, otherwise business decisions may be based on falsities and the markets can't handle that. Of course that was before Murdoch bought the WSJ, wonder if Chomsky still thinks that today about those papers' (particularly the WSJ) being more accurate than the rest?
    Since when did Noam Chomsky understand anything about financial markets or business or capitalism in general?  And what what does Murdoch have to do with any of this?  Wall Street has been seen as a crap shoot since it’s inception, with a mix of rational players, irrational players and criminals masquerading as impartial brokers.
    williamlondonRayz2016
  • Reply 27 of 45
    anomeanome Posts: 1,264member
    kantx said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    “Tripp Mickle”?

    I mean, is that his actual name?

    Wow. No wonder he’s so angry. 


    :D B) No. This is an alias. His real name is Mick Tripple. I mean Trick Mipple. Some snooties are really out of luck right out of the gate of life.


    I knew a "Trick Mipple" once. She was a one-legged burlesque dancer with a travelling sideshow. You could watch her dance for a nickel, or a dime would get you a private show, and you could see what the fuss was about...

    No, wait, that was "Trick Nipple". My mistake.

    Anyway, given that these stories follow a pattern, you can practically plan out your entire year around which set of iPhone rumours are going about. I think we have a few more weeks of "Last year's iPhone sales were disappointing" before we get into "This year's iPhone design is going to disappoint". I hope to get some leave around "Technical issues delaying this year's iPhone", as the weather is nice around that time of year, but I might have to wait until "Apple unable to meet mediocre demand for new iPhone".

    kantxradarthekat
  • Reply 28 of 45
    Is it maybe possible that this supposed slashing of production is due to the fact that the initial production ramp-up happen much sooner than expected. This means that they were able to make and sell a lot more iPhone X’s in the previous quarter that they won’t have to make this quarter.
    netmage
  • Reply 29 of 45
    anome said:
    kantx said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    “Tripp Mickle”?

    I mean, is that his actual name?

    Wow. No wonder he’s so angry. 


    :D B) No. This is an alias. His real name is Mick Tripple. I mean Trick Mipple. Some snooties are really out of luck right out of the gate of life.


    I knew a "Trick Mipple" once. She was a one-legged burlesque dancer with a travelling sideshow. You could watch her dance for a nickel, or a dime would get you a private show, and you could see what the fuss was about...

    No, wait, that was "Trick Nipple". My mistake.

    Anyway, given that these stories follow a pattern, you can practically plan out your entire year around which set of iPhone rumours are going about. I think we have a few more weeks of "Last year's iPhone sales were disappointing" before we get into "This year's iPhone design is going to disappoint". I hope to get some leave around "Technical issues delaying this year's iPhone", as the weather is nice around that time of year, but I might have to wait until "Apple unable to meet mediocre demand for new iPhone".

    Trippy Micky continues to exist here : it is all the rage really. And it did Columbia… :D

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-facestwo-federal-probesover-iphone-battery-issue-1517348203?mod=yahoo_hs&yptr=yahoo

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/trippmickle/
    edited January 2018
  • Reply 30 of 45
    JWSC said:
    Noam Chomsky used to say that some of the most accurate papers are the financial ones, like the WSJ and FT, because the markets *require* accuracy, otherwise business decisions may be based on falsities and the markets can't handle that. Of course that was before Murdoch bought the WSJ, wonder if Chomsky still thinks that today about those papers' (particularly the WSJ) being more accurate than the rest?
    Since when did Noam Chomsky understand anything about financial markets or business or capitalism in general?  And what what does Murdoch have to do with any of this?  Wall Street has been seen as a crap shoot since it’s inception, with a mix of rational players, irrational players and criminals masquerading as impartial brokers.
    Are you serious? Are you questioning Chomsky's intellect or the logic of what he said? Seems a strange battle to wage in my opinion, but whatever floats your boat.

    As for Murdoch - you do know that he owns the WSJ, right? You do know who Murdoch is, right? And you know what other properties he owns, right? Hard to find someone with less integrity and more sensationalism, and let's not forget tits on page 3. He's more interested in selling papers and pushing a conservative agenda than in reporting accuracy or truth, and the WSJ has changed under his ownership.
    MacPro
  • Reply 31 of 45
    How can sell side analysts believe Apple was forecasting 40M X sales in the March quarter when the last two March quarters total iPhone sales were 50M and 51M respectively? On what planet would X sales be 90% of total iPhone sales? Heck I doubt Apple sold 40M iPhone X in the holiday quarter. If they did that would be roughly half of iPhone sales which seems high.
    This is the only rational comment made on this entire thread.
  • Reply 32 of 45
    Apple buys back its own stock. Now it can buy more shares for the same amount (as can anyone, of course, if they wish). This is positive for shareholders, as opposed to traders who may be scared into abandoning the trade with a loss. For the manipulators to gain, traders have to lose. For the rest of us, regret about not timing the market perfectly is unwise. Even Buffett cannot time the market, and he doesn't even think about it.
    What good have buybacks been? Apple is still undervalued compared to its competitors and the sector. And it still lives and dies by iPhone. Year to date Apple is down 1.3%. Amazon is up 22%, Google 11%, Facebook 6% and Microsoft 8%. All because of iPhone rumors. Google’s PE is 39. Microsoft 33. Apple’s is 18. I don’t see any evidence that share buybacks have been good for the stock.
  • Reply 33 of 45
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,030moderator
    sunman42 said:
    Jeez. My AAPL holdings have sure been getting the stuffing knocked out over the past week.
    You don't think some people are circulating rumors to make money off puts when the share price jumps back up after the earnings report Thursday?
    I shorted 10 January 2020 $175 puts, for $25.80, $25,787 after commission.  I’m very confident that’s free money.  Break even at $149.20, in two years.  Two years of increased dividend and paybacks.  Yup. Free money.
  • Reply 34 of 45
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,030moderator
    toddzrx said:
    Hahahaha!  Funny to see the libs come out and defend Apple over fake news, but trash Trump when he declares a story is fake.  What a bunch of hypocrites!
    There has always been BS news reports. 

    And there are some false or exaggerated stories about Trump. But most of the coverage of the president is outrageous because it is true. He's on record, on video, that anyone can look at, and realize who he is, what kind of person he is, what he thinks, who he hates, who he treats without any respect, and how little of any real plan he has about anything. 

    What Trump and his supporters should really think about, is not the news of today that will be forgotten tomorrow, but how his actual behavior will be memorialized in the future as being a period of American decline globally, and a collapse in decorum, morals, intelligence, competency and respectability at home in the USA. If you think "liberals" in the news media are giving Trump a hard time, wait till you find out who writes respected history and who makes movies. Hint: it's not AM outrage radio jockeys and televangelists.
    Bingo!  Couldn’t have said it better.
    bshank
  • Reply 35 of 45
    Almost as if AAPL is getting punished for something they never guided towards.  This notion of a “supercycle” has really been taken to the extreme and highlights just how much AAPL is hated by some.  Especially the WSJ.  It will for sure be a buying opportunity, but still remain a long term growth company.  Also, I guess everyone forgot about ASP’s and repatriation of cash...oh and a growing services stream.  It’s unfortunate that such trash news scares people away from good stocks.
  • Reply 36 of 45
    I would love to see a headline that Tim Cook has authorized a $25B buyback. 
  • Reply 37 of 45
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,561member
    JWSC said:
    Noam Chomsky used to say that some of the most accurate papers are the financial ones, like the WSJ and FT, because the markets *require* accuracy, otherwise business decisions may be based on falsities and the markets can't handle that. Of course that was before Murdoch bought the WSJ, wonder if Chomsky still thinks that today about those papers' (particularly the WSJ) being more accurate than the rest?
    Since when did Noam Chomsky understand anything about financial markets or business or capitalism in general?  And what what does Murdoch have to do with any of this?  Wall Street has been seen as a crap shoot since it’s inception, with a mix of rational players, irrational players and criminals masquerading as impartial brokers.
    Are you serious? Are you questioning Chomsky's intellect or the logic of what he said? Seems a strange battle to wage in my opinion, but whatever floats your boat.

    As for Murdoch - you do know that he owns the WSJ, right? You do know who Murdoch is, right? And you know what other properties he owns, right? Hard to find someone with less integrity and more sensationalism, and let's not forget tits on page 3. He's more interested in selling papers and pushing a conservative agenda than in reporting accuracy or truth, and the WSJ has changed under his ownership.
    There are no longer any tits on page 3. 
  • Reply 38 of 45
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,561member
    … so I’m told. 
  • Reply 39 of 45
    Well, this whole thing really made me angry.  Then the lightbulb came on and I bought some more shares yesterday.
    In the meantime, I’m really enjoying my new iPhone X.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 40 of 45
    Rayz2016 said:
    JWSC said:
    Noam Chomsky used to say that some of the most accurate papers are the financial ones, like the WSJ and FT, because the markets *require* accuracy, otherwise business decisions may be based on falsities and the markets can't handle that. Of course that was before Murdoch bought the WSJ, wonder if Chomsky still thinks that today about those papers' (particularly the WSJ) being more accurate than the rest?
    Since when did Noam Chomsky understand anything about financial markets or business or capitalism in general?  And what what does Murdoch have to do with any of this?  Wall Street has been seen as a crap shoot since it’s inception, with a mix of rational players, irrational players and criminals masquerading as impartial brokers.
    Are you serious? Are you questioning Chomsky's intellect or the logic of what he said? Seems a strange battle to wage in my opinion, but whatever floats your boat.

    As for Murdoch - you do know that he owns the WSJ, right? You do know who Murdoch is, right? And you know what other properties he owns, right? Hard to find someone with less integrity and more sensationalism, and let's not forget tits on page 3. He's more interested in selling papers and pushing a conservative agenda than in reporting accuracy or truth, and the WSJ has changed under his ownership.
    There are no longer any tits on page 3. 
    No, they ended that "tradition" just a few years ago. It didn't improve the paper's quality unsurprisingly, it's still a rag to avoid.
    edited January 2018
Sign In or Register to comment.