Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on May 22, 2017 2:36:14 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on May 22, 2017 3:23:28 GMT -8
The RBC PT hike from $157 to $168 - and that this will be the first trillion dollar company by 2018 (referenced above in Since84's article from MacRumors) is getting around on various blogs.
|
|
|
Post by Luckychoices on May 22, 2017 5:33:01 GMT -8
This is for all you smug AAPL Longs on this board (you know who you are), who continue to hold AAPL, even though Apple, as a company, is clearly on its last legs. /s I'm including in this post, one of the latest comments by the most notorious Apple naysayer on Seeking Alpha. Take his words as a warning of your financial foolishness and divest your AAPL holdings immediately lest you end up being featured in the documentary that will surely be made_according to Glen. In this post, he's responding to another AAPL naysayer with the username, AgileDave. AgileDave ridicules all AAPL Longs for holding AAPL through thick and thin. He, OTOH, *buys* AAPL at its lowest share price and *sells* it at its highest share price (just before the drop). Note: This is a comment from an article on Seeking Alpha titled, Now What Do We Do About Apple?============ Glen Rivard Comments (11780) |+ Follow |Send Message Dave, "more interested in being Apple cheerleaders than making money with AAPL. " I have spent a lot of time trying to figure it out over the last 2 years. It also something that keeps me on SA trying to figure it out. It seems so irrational to me but then they feel I am irrational. Yes, some are goofing but there is enough of them that they are serious and really think it. What has most shocked me is that when I came on SA over 2 years ago and shared my thoughts Apple has declined since. The three I recommended Google, Amazon and FB all had strong growth. I posted over 10k posts during that time yet they still can not see it. It is not like they need to get there on their own it has been all laid out in front of them. What I am most curious about now is how do they end up getting it? Does it happen quickly? What I do think is telling is I will share that we have a lot of Apple hardware and my daughter, for example, is replacing her iPhone with a new iPhone. They will be like see Apple is killer. There appears to be too much of a connection in loving their products and investing. But the other aspect is inertia. I made tons and tons of money on Apple over a decade plus. But I am comfortable that things change and you deal with it. I am thinking making tons of money through the years off of Apple makes it harder for them to deal with things change. Well all I got so far. Maybe when they start "getting it" they will share. I really hope they will to help everyone. BTW, I do truly believe there will be a documentary on the fall of Apple in the future. This is NOT simply hyperbole on my part. I do look forward to being in the documentary and correct how this story will be told. It will be told in terms of lack of innovation. That is true but NOT the real story. The real story, IMO, is arrogance and lack of vision. Apple was so, so, so strong they simply could have just copied and been fine. They could buy whatever they needed. Mesh is a perfect example. Apple could have purchased Eero or Orbi, etc and put their name on it and port their iOS app and sold for a ton of money. Instead Google hits the market and now best selling Mesh product on Amazon and Apple ends the AirPort line. The other problem is vision and direction. But the other issue is business model. I get the not collecting personal information and not doing ads. But how does Apple fund the huge investments for Maps and Siri, etc? In the end Apple is NOT making enough extra from privacy to make the approach prudent, IMO. 21 May 2017, 11:48 AM Report Abuse ============
|
|
Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on May 22, 2017 6:33:06 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by aaplcrazie on May 22, 2017 7:49:31 GMT -8
Thanks Since84,
I BTFD $152.99
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by zzmac on May 22, 2017 11:15:20 GMT -8
I heard the other day that when Nixon was impeached there followed a 2 year bear market which lost 50%.
With all the talk starting about impeaching President Chauncey Gardner what do you all think about a repeat in history?
(If there is a way to delete my duplicate post on the daily thread please do so or let me know how I can do it. Thx)
|
|
|
Post by macster on May 22, 2017 13:06:27 GMT -8
|
|
Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on May 22, 2017 14:15:00 GMT -8
I like "Privacy Matters". Ouch.
|
|
crispin
Member
KBJ for the win. AAPL long and strong since 2000
Posts: 311
|
Post by crispin on May 22, 2017 14:55:40 GMT -8
I heard the other day that when Nixon was impeached there followed a 2 year bear market which lost 50%. With all the talk starting about impeaching President Chauncey Gardner what do you all think about a repeat in history? (If there is a way to delete my duplicate post on the daily thread please do so or let me know how I can do it. Thx) I don't think you can draw a direct line from impeachment to a two-year bear market. It just isn't that simple. It really depends on so many other factors. If nothing else, we certainly don't have a lot of data to draw from when it comes to impeachments. After the quasi-impeachment of Clinton the markets did fine until the dot com bust - but you'd be hard pressed to prove any connection. Short answer is I don't think impeachment is predictive of anything.
|
|
|
Post by zzmac on May 22, 2017 15:21:34 GMT -8
I heard the other day that when Nixon was impeached there followed a 2 year bear market which lost 50%. With all the talk starting about impeaching President Chauncey Gardner what do you all think about a repeat in history? (If there is a way to delete my duplicate post on the daily thread please do so or let me know how I can do it. Thx) I don't think you can draw a direct line from impeachment to a two-year bear market. It just isn't that simple. It really depends on so many other factors. If nothing else, we certainly don't have a lot of data to draw from when it comes to impeachments. After the quasi-impeachment of Clinton the markets did fine until the dot com bust - but you'd be hard pressed to prove any connection. Short answer is I don't think impeachment is predictive of anything. Clinton's quasi impeachment dropped the market 12% over 6 weeks.
|
|
crispin
Member
KBJ for the win. AAPL long and strong since 2000
Posts: 311
|
Post by crispin on May 22, 2017 16:30:00 GMT -8
I don't think you can draw a direct line from impeachment to a two-year bear market. It just isn't that simple. It really depends on so many other factors. If nothing else, we certainly don't have a lot of data to draw from when it comes to impeachments. After the quasi-impeachment of Clinton the markets did fine until the dot com bust - but you'd be hard pressed to prove any connection. Short answer is I don't think impeachment is predictive of anything. Clinton's quasi impeachment dropped the market 12% over 6 weeks. Oh yes I meant a more long term perspective, an important distinction. Obviously short term reactions are expected since the market hates uncertainty and turmoil. But you mentioned the two year bear market after Nixon's impeachment, and I just don't think you can draw any conclusions from that.
|
|