|
Post by lovemyipad on Nov 14, 2012 6:31:12 GMT -8
On another note: Am I completely naive but who the hell knew that Generals had groupies?!!! I thought that was reserved for rock bands and stars. I must be completely out of touch. Rock bands, stars and moderators of finance boards. ROFL!!!
|
|
|
Post by fas550 on Nov 14, 2012 6:31:18 GMT -8
IMHO the tide is turning. We have had higher call volume than put ... There was a chart put up about a week ago showing the ratio's. At one point last week it dropped into the 20's for a day. When I see all those calls overhead it just confirms we are not going up. That is a big concern also, the slow death sideways move . As for the QE3, the fact that all assets needs to be raised in value to combat the fiscal imbalance should be taken into consideration. The talk of another recession is scary. Do I think it is going to happen, not really. I do not think we can survive another recession so quickly after this jobless recovery. If we are starting at 8% UE going into another recession, 10% would be a given. There goes the housing market, automobile market and computers. (People will still buy phones, they are necessities now) Ben knows this, hence the open checkbook. Money seeks return. Can you explain a bit more on why you think all the calls overhead mean we are not going up? Is it because you think others will act to keep the price down so the strike is not reached? If that is the case I believe that happens on the weeklies and as we approach an expiration on non-weeklies but I can see how longer term an concerted effort can be made to keep prices lower as I just can see how to keep that up given the market cap. Not a loaded question and just curious on your view.
|
|
|
Post by fas550 on Nov 14, 2012 6:38:34 GMT -8
Why is she being vilified? LOL The funny thing is that she has an unpaid position. (I guess if she was getting paid they would call her a hooker.) There is so much more to this story and it looks like all the dirty laundry is going to fly out the window. Amazing how Benghazi has been moved to the back burner. Why is she being vilified? Because they can and she is a confirmation of many's deep rooted stereotypes and resentments; basically the press always takes the bullet train to the lowest common denominator in human nature. Benghazi is not on their radar unfortunately although many people are doing a pretty good job trying.
|
|
|
Post by ibuyer on Nov 14, 2012 6:40:46 GMT -8
Good point at the same time think about this: For meaningful stock buyback they would probably need to bring in some of the pile of cash from overseas so basically a dollar brought back would not be a dollar because of the taxes they would have to pay (might be the same for a dividend too but I believe a meaningful higher dividend would not cost as much as a meaningful buyback). Basically what I am saying is either we pay the taxes on the dividend and Apple retains value or they pay the taxes on the buyback etc and loose what could be about .23c on the dollar. I'm not sure and all I can see right now is an image of a self-licking ice cream. Anyway hopefully better heads in the Apple CFO office are trying to figure what do do with all that cash. It is already bordering on embarrassment as no event, acquisition or supply chain maneuver would even come close to depleting the hoard by any significant level. The pressure during conf calls will increase as the hoard gets larger and explanations get weaker as why that money isn't going back to stockholders who after all are the owners; given if they continue to show they don't have any plans for the money. All true - but we are also assuming that there won't be some type of Washington negotiation on bringing that cash back in some "tax holiday" way. That - if it happened - would be great. Naturally these are all pie in the sky scenarios but who knows?! A large buyback would be HUGE and a promise from managment/BOD that they stand ready to protect shareholder interests would be HUGE SQUARED. AAPL does not need to bring cash back. It has 40B onshore and 80B offshore. So it could use the 40B plus cashflow from ops. After that, they can float onshore debt (~5 years would be UST+75bps). They could probably do 60-80B at have a AA rating. Imagine, that could be the best 100B spent! EPS would go up 20% and if they dont have to wait for a change in the tax code. IF and when the "tax holiday" appears they a bring the money onshore.
|
|
|
Post by appledoc on Nov 14, 2012 6:42:51 GMT -8
There was a chart put up about a week ago showing the ratio's. At one point last week it dropped into the 20's for a day. When I see all those calls overhead it just confirms we are not going up. That is a big concern also, the slow death sideways move . As for the QE3, the fact that all assets needs to be raised in value to combat the fiscal imbalance should be taken into consideration. The talk of another recession is scary. Do I think it is going to happen, not really. I do not think we can survive another recession so quickly after this jobless recovery. If we are starting at 8% UE going into another recession, 10% would be a given. There goes the housing market, automobile market and computers. (People will still buy phones, they are necessities now) Ben knows this, hence the open checkbook. Money seeks return. Can you explain a bit more on why you think all the calls overhead mean we are not going up? Is it because you think others will act to keep the price down so the strike is not reached? If that is the case I believe that happens on the weeklies and as we approach an expiration on non-weeklies but I can see how longer term an concerted effort can be made to keep prices lower as I just can see how to keep that up given the market cap. Not a loaded question and just curious on your view. IMO, looking at calls and puts and determining a pain range only applies to Fridays. It's BS otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by mbeauch on Nov 14, 2012 6:43:48 GMT -8
You got it fas. Jan is where the LEAP concentration resides. Just my .02c (barley have that with margin), but I don't think we move up much over 620-630 by January. They have wiped out the value of many calls. Many of these calls are just on the books because there is no value in closing them. The last thing the EO's want to do is give a worthless call value. It is not so much a conspiracy as it was PO's EPS guidance that has put us in this mess.
|
|
|
Post by fas550 on Nov 14, 2012 6:52:18 GMT -8
You got it fas. Jan is where the LEAP concentration resides. Just my .02c (barley have that with margin), but I don't think we move up much over 620-630 by January. They have wiped out the value of many calls. Many of these calls are just on the books because there is no value in closing them. The last thing the EO's want to do is give a worthless call value. It is not so much a conspiracy as it was PO's EPS guidance that has put us in this mess. Just curious what do you think is going to happen post EO Jan and post earnings (given we exceed guidance). Roof blows off? Much the same? Reason I ask is I have a large BCS in Apr 690/715. I am kinda resigned on not making a profit, just trying to lessen the right now, dreadful loss.
|
|
|
Post by appledoc on Nov 14, 2012 6:58:14 GMT -8
You got it fas. Jan is where the LEAP concentration resides. Just my .02c (barley have that with margin), but I don't think we move up much over 620-630 by January. They have wiped out the value of many calls. Many of these calls are just on the books because there is no value in closing them. The last thing the EO's want to do is give a worthless call value. It is not so much a conspiracy as it was PO's EPS guidance that has put us in this mess. Just curious what do you think is going to happen post EO Jan and post earnings (given we exceed guidance). Roof blows off? Much the same? Reason I ask is I have a large BCS in Apr 690/715. I am kinda resigned on not making a profit, just trying to lessen the right now, dreadful loss. I'm holding the same. I've been bringing the cost down as we continue the dip. I'm confident I will be able to sell at a profit at some point after January earnings.
|
|
|
Post by ibuyer on Nov 14, 2012 6:58:14 GMT -8
Can you explain a bit more on why you think all the calls overhead mean we are not going up? Is it because you think others will act to keep the price down so the strike is not reached? If that is the case I believe that happens on the weeklies and as we approach an expiration on non-weeklies but I can see how longer term an concerted effort can be made to keep prices lower as I just can see how to keep that up given the market cap. Not a loaded question and just curious on your view. IMO, looking at calls and puts and determining a pain range only applies to Fridays. It's BS otherwise. Read somewhere the CBOE is expanding weeklys to up 5 weeks expiries. How do folks think this will affect the stock and vol going forward?
|
|
|
Post by fas550 on Nov 14, 2012 7:03:37 GMT -8
Just curious what do you think is going to happen post EO Jan and post earnings (given we exceed guidance). Roof blows off? Much the same? Reason I ask is I have a large BCS in Apr 690/715. I am kinda resigned on not making a profit, just trying to lessen the right now, dreadful loss. I'm holding the same. I've been bringing the cost down as we continue the dip. I'm confident I will be able to sell at a profit at some point after January earnings. I'm with ya brother! My average cost is about 7.6. I look at the loss and think oh crap but then again Apr is a long way given almost two earnings coming. That's the riskiest stuff I have IMHO. Big believer if you are wrong it's better be wrong together or united on our wrongness :-)
|
|
|
Post by rickag on Nov 14, 2012 7:07:18 GMT -8
There has been a lot of talk about call open interest providing a considerable drag on AAPL. I understand the concept assuming large fund managers wrote the calls for their funds.
The question I have is how common is it for the large Mutual Funds to invest in calls? My understanding is mutual fund investing in options is controlled by regulations, commonly the use of covered calls.
If the majority of mutual funds do not invest in options, what would they care if AAPL creates value to all the calls, if they buy AAPL it is their best interest in AAPL increasing.
Sorry if this is a stupid question but I could not find any real information on the internet listing the number or percentage of funds that invest in options as opposed to those that don't.
|
|
|
Post by Apple II+ on Nov 14, 2012 7:20:49 GMT -8
On another note: Am I completely naive but who the hell knew that Generals had groupies?!!! I thought that was reserved for rock bands and stars. I must be completely out of touch. Rock bands, stars and moderators of finance boards. "Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac." -- Henry Kissinger
|
|
|
Post by fas550 on Nov 14, 2012 7:28:21 GMT -8
Rock bands, stars and moderators of finance boards. "Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac." -- Henry Kissinger Ah.. Given Henry's looks he would need to say that it's about the only aphrodisiac working for him :-)
|
|
|
Post by prazan on Nov 14, 2012 7:49:22 GMT -8
IMHO the tide is turning. We have had higher call volume than put volume for a few days now. Given these are basically futures I am more inclined to believe this is a leading indicator i.e. the call volume will exceed the put volume prior to a number of positive closes on the stock (how far leading is a big question). Based on some very brief research this seems to be the flow. Gregg T deserves the credit for bringing this to my attention. Anyway here are some interesting numbers as of market closed yesterday. Apple Put Volume: 241,046 contracts Call Volume: 296,365 contracts Put/Call Ratio: 0.81 Google Put Volume: 19,402 contracts Call Volume: 17,858 contracts Put/Call Ratio: 1.09 Amazon Put Volume: 17,983 contracts Call Volume: 15,347 contracts Put/Call Ratio: 1.17 Would you be willing to share your source for these numbers? I haven't looked into this at all but should probably start.
|
|
|
Post by fas550 on Nov 14, 2012 8:00:30 GMT -8
IMHO the tide is turning. We have had higher call volume than put volume for a few days now. Given these are basically futures I am more inclined to believe this is a leading indicator i.e. the call volume will exceed the put volume prior to a number of positive closes on the stock (how far leading is a big question). Based on some very brief research this seems to be the flow. Gregg T deserves the credit for bringing this to my attention. Anyway here are some interesting numbers as of market closed yesterday. Apple Put Volume: 241,046 contracts Call Volume: 296,365 contracts Put/Call Ratio: 0.81 Google Put Volume: 19,402 contracts Call Volume: 17,858 contracts Put/Call Ratio: 1.09 Amazon Put Volume: 17,983 contracts Call Volume: 15,347 contracts Put/Call Ratio: 1.17 Would you be willing to share your source for these numbers? I haven't looked into this at all but should probably start. Oh sure it's no secret. I get them from: www.poweropt.com/partnerdetail.asp?txtsymbol=aapl&co=olNow for some reason to not get the constant registration request I simply change the symbol in the web page address.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2012 8:13:20 GMT -8
Question...why could Apple not take their offshore earnings and buy back their stock without paying taxes? Is that a possibility? Or would they need to re-patriate the cash, pay taxes on it and then buy back?
|
|
|
Post by ibuyer on Nov 14, 2012 8:17:20 GMT -8
Or would they need to re-patriate the cash, pay taxes on it and then buy back? bingo
|
|
|
Post by bryanyc on Nov 14, 2012 8:21:01 GMT -8
There has been a lot of talk about call open interest providing a considerable drag on AAPL. I understand the concept assuming large fund managers wrote the calls for their funds. The question I have is how common is it for the large Mutual Funds to invest in calls? My understanding is mutual fund investing in options is controlled by regulations, commonly the use of covered calls. If the majority of mutual funds do not invest in options, what would they care if AAPL creates value to all the calls, if they buy AAPL it is their best interest in AAPL increasing. Sorry if this is a stupid question but I could not find any real information on the internet listing the number or percentage of funds that invest in options as opposed to those that don't. To me it makes a lot of sense. The market makers who sell those calls have a lot on the line and they do everything possible to profit on the sale. And there is also the inevitable crowded trade syndrome that was the phenomenal rise of AAPL from 460. I don't understand exactly how they can pressure a stock down (probably there are a number methods to use together) but as Cramer once alluded to, it is done. I have (stupidly) been buying back in on the drop since 633 all the way down - but only Jan 14's, so I can weather some of the short term insanity. I am targeting a stock price of 850 - 900 by that date. Hopefully we get there much sooner and I can lock in some of the profits with converting into a spread. Thats the theory at least.
|
|
|
Post by rob_london on Nov 14, 2012 8:30:08 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Nov 14, 2012 8:52:11 GMT -8
Two days ago CNBC compared AAPL to RCA (Kaminsky) and now today at noon they are running a segment as to why AAPL is turning into KO as a company. I think AAPL should buy Comcast and fire everyone at CNBC for being incompetent and just plain idiots.
|
|
|
Post by alice on Nov 14, 2012 9:03:48 GMT -8
I do not see aapl on the buying on weakness list.
|
|
|
Post by rickag on Nov 14, 2012 9:06:54 GMT -8
There has been a lot of talk about call open interest providing a considerable drag on AAPL. I understand the concept assuming large fund managers wrote the calls for their funds. The question I have is how common is it for the large Mutual Funds to invest in calls? My understanding is mutual fund investing in options is controlled by regulations, commonly the use of covered calls. If the majority of mutual funds do not invest in options, what would they care if AAPL creates value to all the calls, if they buy AAPL it is their best interest in AAPL increasing. Sorry if this is a stupid question but I could not find any real information on the internet listing the number or percentage of funds that invest in options as opposed to those that don't. To me it makes a lot of sense. The market makers who sell those calls have a lot on the line and they do everything possible to profit on the sale. And there is also the inevitable crowded trade syndrome that was the phenomenal rise of AAPL from 460. I don't understand exactly how they can pressure a stock down (probably there are a number methods to use together) but as Cramer once alluded to, it is done. I have (stupidly) been buying back in on the drop since 633 all the way down - but only Jan 14's, so I can weather some of the short term insanity. I am targeting a stock price of 850 - 900 by that date. Hopefully we get there much sooner and I can lock in some of the profits with converting into a spread. Thats the theory at least. Thank you for the response Yes, I understand the concept that open interest in calls may be a drag on AAPL as the EOs or those funds writing the calls have a vested interest in AAPL not rising above the strike prices. I am just trying to understand which funds are authorized to invest in writing calls. The only information I found is Hedge funds may invest in options, while typical mutual funds may not. Hedge funds are not open for individuals to invest in limiting our choices. The question then remains, if say Fidelity or Wacovia invest in AAPL is it not in their interest to assure AAPL increases in value or do Fidelity and / or Wacovia also have hedge funds that could present a definite conflict of interest?
|
|
|
Post by rob_london on Nov 14, 2012 9:07:30 GMT -8
I do not see aapl on the buying on weakness list. It was second highest on the list when I posted the link
|
|
|
Post by madmaxroi on Nov 14, 2012 9:16:10 GMT -8
Great, CNBC is leading with an article regarding Apple and why the growth is coming to an abrupt end. Does the media ever stop?
|
|
|
Post by ibuyer on Nov 14, 2012 9:16:46 GMT -8
Two days ago CNBC compared AAPL to RCA (Kaminsky) and now today at noon they are running a segment as to why AAPL is turning into KO as a company. I think AAPL should buy Comcast and fire everyone at CNBC for being incompetent and just plain idiots. to be fair, Karminsky was refering to well-followed chartist report that even business insider picked up... www.businessinsider.com/chart-apple-walking-in-rcas-footsteps-2012-11Bernstein guy is very thoughful. Hopefully, he is good on the segment...
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Nov 14, 2012 9:24:25 GMT -8
Two days ago CNBC compared AAPL to RCA (Kaminsky) and now today at noon they are running a segment as to why AAPL is turning into KO as a company. I think AAPL should buy Comcast and fire everyone at CNBC for being incompetent and just plain idiots. to be fair, Karminsky was refering to well-followed chartist report that even business insider picked up... www.businessinsider.com/chart-apple-walking-in-rcas-footsteps-2012-11Bernstein guy is very thoughful. Hopefully, he is good on the segment... You can chop every chart or massage every number to make it look the way you want it to look. I won many deals doing just that -- and THAT is what these analysts and chartists do just to get the publicity. Slap on the ticker AAPL and it will get you a spot on any show. That said, it is Tony Sacconaghi who seems to be out there saying that AAPL's hyper growth is over. To that I say - great - give me Coke's mulitiple and we should be between $900-$1000 on stock price. In addition, where was Tony at $704? NOW he decides to make this call --- people actually get paid for this nonsense? It's infuriating.
|
|
|
Post by ibuyer on Nov 14, 2012 9:25:26 GMT -8
Two days ago CNBC compared AAPL to RCA (Kaminsky) and now today at noon they are running a segment as to why AAPL is turning into KO as a company. I think AAPL should buy Comcast and fire everyone at CNBC for being incompetent and just plain idiots. to be fair, Karminsky was refering to well-followed chartist report that even business insider picked up... www.businessinsider.com/chart-apple-walking-in-rcas-footsteps-2012-11Bernstein guy is very thoughful. Hopefully, he is good on the segment... sheesh, just a tease for the 5pm show.
|
|
|
Post by spoonman on Nov 14, 2012 9:28:11 GMT -8
Two days ago CNBC compared AAPL to RCA (Kaminsky) and now today at noon they are running a segment as to why AAPL is turning into KO as a company. I think AAPL should buy Comcast and fire everyone at CNBC for being incompetent and just plain idiots. to be fair, Karminsky was refering to well-followed chartist report that even business insider picked up... www.businessinsider.com/chart-apple-walking-in-rcas-footsteps-2012-11Bernstein guy is very thoughful. Hopefully, he is good on the segment... Is this a joke? RCA went head first into the Great Depression. Is he saying we are heading into a Great Depression? What is the point of this overlay? What a ridiculous comparison. The FUD is insane. The NY Post even spun apples retail stores in a bad light. Reading the headline you'd think that Apple Retail was losing money. Last years FUD was bad but this year it is almost criminal how ridiculous and wrong all these stories are.
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Nov 14, 2012 9:29:32 GMT -8
The negativity is just relentless with the business media. Not trying to shoot the messenger.
|
|
|
Post by spoonman on Nov 14, 2012 9:33:02 GMT -8
My friend works in PR and his job is to get articles written about his clients in the NY Times, the WSJ etc.. Someone somewhere is paying top dollar to get negative articles written about Apple. It doesn't make any sense any other way. It's just 12 rounds of getting punched in the face.
None of these stories even make a lot of sense or they are just spun in a horrible way and it's daily.
|
|