|
Post by phoebear611 on Dec 11, 2012 2:07:50 GMT -8
Good morning - looking green in PM - lawmakers return to Washington today. Hope springs eternal.
|
|
|
Post by rob_london on Dec 11, 2012 3:08:06 GMT -8
I have been studying the information posted on StockTwits by that guy we discussed yesterday. He may have an agenda and the screen dumps from his terminal may have been falsified. However assuming that it is true: Institutions currently own 69.7% of AAPL shares, of which 32.7% are growth funds. Only 2% of AAPL shares are owned by funds classified as 'Value', although 19% are owned by 'Blend' funds. Retail investors have pulled out a net $5.7 billion during the past six months, whilst during the same period there have been $7.7 billion net additions from institutions.
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Dec 11, 2012 3:10:29 GMT -8
I have been studying the information posted on StockTwits by that guy we discussed yesterday. He may have an agenda and the screen dumps from his terminal may have been falsified. However assuming that it is true: Institutions currently own 69.7% of AAPL shares, of which 32.7% are growth funds. Only 2% of AAPL shares are owned by funds classified as 'Value', although 19% are owned by 'Blend' funds. Retail investors have pulled out a net $5.7 billion during the past six months, whilst during the same period there have been $7.7 billion net additions from institutions. I agree with your premise re: his/her agenda. Something not right there. Also, the stats on retail make sense wrt two things: (1) fear of principal loss (2) tax selling.
|
|
|
Post by rickag on Dec 11, 2012 4:56:25 GMT -8
I have been studying the information posted on StockTwits by that guy we discussed yesterday. He may have an agenda and the screen dumps from his terminal may have been falsified. However assuming that it is true: Institutions currently own 69.7% of AAPL shares, of which 32.7% are growth funds. Only 2% of AAPL shares are owned by funds classified as 'Value', although 19% are owned by 'Blend' funds. Retail investors have pulled out a net $5.7 billion during the past six months, whilst during the same period there have been $7.7 billion net additions from institutions. Thank you for the information, do you have a link?
|
|
|
Post by frqntflr on Dec 11, 2012 5:01:49 GMT -8
Watched the recent TC interview last night ... a few things struck me about it ...
- surprise at seeing almost full Samsung ad embedded in interview ... pretty low of NBC - surprise at some of the goading questions ... seems beneath NBC and BW - TC seems like decent guy but no SJ ... not meant to be good or bad - TC stuck to his game plan ... you can be sure he was well prepared for this - Apple's in good hands
|
|
|
Post by rob_london on Dec 11, 2012 5:09:03 GMT -8
I have been studying the information posted on StockTwits by that guy we discussed yesterday. He may have an agenda and the screen dumps from his terminal may have been falsified. However assuming that it is true: Institutions currently own 69.7% of AAPL shares, of which 32.7% are growth funds. Only 2% of AAPL shares are owned by funds classified as 'Value', although 19% are owned by 'Blend' funds. Retail investors have pulled out a net $5.7 billion during the past six months, whilst during the same period there have been $7.7 billion net additions from institutions. Thank you for the information, do you have a link? Here is a sample of his posts. Please note my previous comments about the source of this information. stocktwits.com/message/10937445stocktwits.com/message/10936146stocktwits.com/message/10936137stocktwits.com/message/10917450stocktwits.com/message/10915107
|
|
|
Post by podboy on Dec 11, 2012 5:09:30 GMT -8
Oh what I would give for a Saturn V right about now..
|
|
|
Post by Red Shirted Ensign on Dec 11, 2012 5:17:52 GMT -8
Katy Huberty makes a compelling FINANCIAL case for the Apple TV. tech.fortune.cnn.com/category/apple-2-0/Survey finds Americans more keen to buy an "iTV" than they were the iPhone or iPad FORTUNE -- Opinions about whether Apple (AAPL) is about to enter the TV set market are about as sharply divided as Fox News and MSNBC. You're either in the Gene Munster camp (It's coming, for sure, in 2013!) or in Jean-Louis Gassée's (It's a pipe dream!). Whichever party you belong to, there's much to be gleaned from the note to clients Morgan Stanley's Katy Huberty issued Tuesday about what she calls "iTV" (to distinguish it from the current Apple TV set-top box). For starters, she's got the results of a proprietary survey of 1,568 U.S. heads of household that she's been sitting on since September. Key findings: 18% of Americans own a smart TV (i.e. with Internet capability) but only 13% know they do, suggesting that there's a market for a smart TV that's as easy to use as an iPhone or iPad. 11% of respondents said they would be "extremely interested" in buying an Apple-branded TV set, which translates into 13 million units in the U.S. alone. 36% said they would be "somewhat interested," which could translate into another 43 million units. The 47% who were either "extremely" or "somewhat" interested is more than twice the 23% who said they were interested in buying an iPhone and the 21% who were interested in an iPad before either of those products were released. Respondents who owned at least one Apple device were nearly four times more interested in buying an iTV that those who did not. 46% of respondents were willing to pay over $1,000 for an iTV and 10% were willing to pay over $2,000. On average, respondents were willing to pony up $1,060, a 20% premium over the the average $884 they paid for their current TV set. Respondents aged 18 to 29 -- the largest consumers of video over the Internet -- were willing to pay the most for iTV: a 32% premium over their current set. Bottom line: iTV represents a $13 billion opportunity that could add $4.50 to Apple's EPS. Huberty's note also reviews some of the TV-related patents that Apple has filed in recent years -- everything from voice-controlled tuning to 3D screens.
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Dec 11, 2012 5:18:13 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by bloodylongaapl on Dec 11, 2012 5:19:36 GMT -8
Surging in PM, now $538. Is there some news I'm missing?
|
|
|
Post by rob_london on Dec 11, 2012 5:23:02 GMT -8
Oh no...please don't gap up. We all know how that ends.
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Dec 11, 2012 5:26:27 GMT -8
I'm hearing Avi saying the stock looks like it wants to go to 542 but again, at that level there still needs to be a determination if it is gap and crap or gap and go (not his exact words of course).
|
|
|
Post by qualitywte on Dec 11, 2012 5:38:47 GMT -8
Katy Huberty makes a compelling FINANCIAL case for the Apple TV. tech.fortune.cnn.com/category/apple-2-0/Survey finds Americans more keen to buy an "iTV" than they were the iPhone or iPad FORTUNE -- Opinions about whether Apple (AAPL) is about to enter the TV set market are about as sharply divided as Fox News and MSNBC. You're either in the Gene Munster camp (It's coming, for sure, in 2013!) or in Jean-Louis Gassée's (It's a pipe dream!). Whichever party you belong to, there's much to be gleaned from the note to clients Morgan Stanley's Katy Huberty issued Tuesday about what she calls "iTV" (to distinguish it from the current Apple TV set-top box). For starters, she's got the results of a proprietary survey of 1,568 U.S. heads of household that she's been sitting on since September. Key findings: 18% of Americans own a smart TV (i.e. with Internet capability) but only 13% know they do, suggesting that there's a market for a smart TV that's as easy to use as an iPhone or iPad. 11% of respondents said they would be "extremely interested" in buying an Apple-branded TV set, which translates into 13 million units in the U.S. alone. 36% said they would be "somewhat interested," which could translate into another 43 million units. The 47% who were either "extremely" or "somewhat" interested is more than twice the 23% who said they were interested in buying an iPhone and the 21% who were interested in an iPad before either of those products were released. Respondents who owned at least one Apple device were nearly four times more interested in buying an iTV that those who did not. 46% of respondents were willing to pay over $1,000 for an iTV and 10% were willing to pay over $2,000. On average, respondents were willing to pony up $1,060, a 20% premium over the the average $884 they paid for their current TV set. Respondents aged 18 to 29 -- the largest consumers of video over the Internet -- were willing to pay the most for iTV: a 32% premium over their current set. Bottom line: iTV represents a $13 billion opportunity that could add $4.50 to Apple's EPS. Huberty's note also reviews some of the TV-related patents that Apple has filed in recent years -- everything from voice-controlled tuning to 3D screens. So the people said "we like the ecosystem and will take the the next device you offer to go with it". I know Apple wants to get this right, and that's why the delay, but there's money on the table waiting to be collected!
|
|
|
Post by ibuyer on Dec 11, 2012 5:40:39 GMT -8
The research piece is from Katy Huberty from Morgan Stanley
|
|
|
Post by appledoc on Dec 11, 2012 5:40:58 GMT -8
It can gap open and not close the gap IF it successfully challenges 555.20 before reversing course.
|
|
|
Post by mstefa on Dec 11, 2012 5:44:54 GMT -8
Watched the recent TC interview last night ... a few things struck me about it ... - surprise at seeing almost full Samsung ad embedded in interview ... pretty low of NBC - surprise at some of the goading questions ... seems beneath NBC and BW - TC seems like decent guy but no SJ ... not meant to be good or bad - TC stuck to his game plan ... you can be sure he was well prepared for this - Apple's in good hands make no mistake, Samsung commercial in TC interview will never happen again. Next time it will be in the contract.
|
|
|
Post by appledoc on Dec 11, 2012 5:45:00 GMT -8
I'm hearing Avi saying the stock looks like it wants to go to 542 but again, at that level there still needs to be a determination if it is gap and crap or gap and go (not his exact words of course). 542 is certainly a setup to go a bit higher, but it really needs to beat 555.20 before we can say the lows have passed. I think Avi would say that it is being extremely indecisive now. Bounce off 526.46 and rejected at 534.51. Defeat of either would have led to bigger moves.
|
|
|
Post by ibuyer on Dec 11, 2012 5:49:14 GMT -8
I have been studying the information posted on StockTwits by that guy we discussed yesterday. He may have an agenda and the screen dumps from his terminal may have been falsified. However assuming that it is true: Institutions currently own 69.7% of AAPL shares, of which 32.7% are growth funds. Only 2% of AAPL shares are owned by funds classified as 'Value', although 19% are owned by 'Blend' funds. Retail investors have pulled out a net $5.7 billion during the past six months, whilst during the same period there have been $7.7 billion net additions from institutions. Rob, these are mostly bloomberg screen caps. the ones I looked at look legit. IMO some of his inferences are not correct though. Your observation about investor turnover is key. Growth investors are leaving and value investors have not stepped in to fill in.
|
|
|
Post by lovemyipad on Dec 11, 2012 5:55:45 GMT -8
It can gap open and not close the gap IF it successfully challenges 555.20 before reversing course. Gold star for today's and yesterday's intraday posts!! You are one to watch, appledoc -- you'll be teaching THIS old dog new tricks soon!
|
|
|
Post by roni on Dec 11, 2012 5:57:16 GMT -8
There certainly are a lot of hypotheses put forth here Here is mine. Over time, AAPL is going up quite a bit, regardless of what happens to today's gap
|
|
|
Post by lovemyipad on Dec 11, 2012 5:57:59 GMT -8
Oh no...please don't gap up. We all know how that ends. My thoughts exactly. I am not keen on gaps up. Sooner or later we may get a runaway gap that isn't filled anytime soon...but don't forget that sucker's out there...
|
|
|
Post by jdrizzo89 on Dec 11, 2012 5:58:00 GMT -8
If its just retail stepping out, why is it that INS ownership down to 69%?
|
|
|
Post by appledoc on Dec 11, 2012 5:58:55 GMT -8
It can gap open and not close the gap IF it successfully challenges 555.20 before reversing course. Gold star for today's and yesterday's intraday posts!! You are one to watch, appledoc -- you'll be teaching THIS old dog new tricks soon! Thanks iPad! I have a long ways to go.
|
|
|
Post by rickag on Dec 11, 2012 6:02:20 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by appledoc on Dec 11, 2012 6:08:58 GMT -8
If its just retail stepping out, why is it that INS ownership down to 69%? This isn't specific to you, but I get frustrated here when people try to paint one factor as THE reason why something is happening. I've been guilty of it too. It's not just retail. It's institutional too. No way we get this trading pattern without it. There are so many factors at play right now. Unfortunately most are negative, which is why we've been hit so badly.
|
|
|
Post by Big Al on Dec 11, 2012 6:09:30 GMT -8
Institutions currently own 69.7% of AAPL shares, of which 32.7% are growth funds. Only 2% of AAPL shares are owned by funds classified as 'Value', although 19% are owned by 'Blend' funds. Retail investors have pulled out a net $5.7 billion during the past six months, whilst during the same period there have been $7.7 billion net additions from institutions. Here two tables that I did based on data from Morningstar Since end of August... ... total number of funds holding AAPL decreased ... more Large Growth Funds are invested, but holding fewer shares .. less Large Value Funds are invested in AAPL, but holding more shares I also looked at data before AAPL issued a dividend, and the holdings are very similar. So the assumption that paying a dividend would attract a whole new kind of investor base does (at least with funds) not seem to hold. In comparison, look at MSFT Even though it has a higher PE than AAPL (i.e., the market thinks that MSFT has higher growth prospects), considerably more Large Value Funds are invested in it.
|
|
|
Post by tuffett on Dec 11, 2012 6:14:53 GMT -8
Katy Huberty makes a compelling FINANCIAL case for the Apple TV. tech.fortune.cnn.com/category/apple-2-0/Survey finds Americans more keen to buy an "iTV" than they were the iPhone or iPad FORTUNE -- Opinions about whether Apple (AAPL) is about to enter the TV set market are about as sharply divided as Fox News and MSNBC. You're either in the Gene Munster camp (It's coming, for sure, in 2013!) or in Jean-Louis Gassée's (It's a pipe dream!). Whichever party you belong to, there's much to be gleaned from the note to clients Morgan Stanley's Katy Huberty issued Tuesday about what she calls "iTV" (to distinguish it from the current Apple TV set-top box). For starters, she's got the results of a proprietary survey of 1,568 U.S. heads of household that she's been sitting on since September. Key findings: 18% of Americans own a smart TV (i.e. with Internet capability) but only 13% know they do, suggesting that there's a market for a smart TV that's as easy to use as an iPhone or iPad. 11% of respondents said they would be "extremely interested" in buying an Apple-branded TV set, which translates into 13 million units in the U.S. alone. 36% said they would be "somewhat interested," which could translate into another 43 million units. The 47% who were either "extremely" or "somewhat" interested is more than twice the 23% who said they were interested in buying an iPhone and the 21% who were interested in an iPad before either of those products were released. Respondents who owned at least one Apple device were nearly four times more interested in buying an iTV that those who did not. 46% of respondents were willing to pay over $1,000 for an iTV and 10% were willing to pay over $2,000. On average, respondents were willing to pony up $1,060, a 20% premium over the the average $884 they paid for their current TV set. Respondents aged 18 to 29 -- the largest consumers of video over the Internet -- were willing to pay the most for iTV: a 32% premium over their current set. Bottom line: iTV represents a $13 billion opportunity that could add $4.50 to Apple's EPS. Huberty's note also reviews some of the TV-related patents that Apple has filed in recent years -- everything from voice-controlled tuning to 3D screens. Man, this is such a weird time. Huberty is probably one of the best AAPL analysts right now. Unbelievable..
|
|
|
Post by Odd-Lot Richard on Dec 11, 2012 6:15:28 GMT -8
Katy Huberty makes a compelling FINANCIAL case for the Apple TV. … Huberty's note also reviews some of the TV-related patents that Apple has filed in recent years -- everything from voice-controlled tuning to 3D screens. Of course, Red, the other Jean-L gainsays this "enduring … fantasy": www.mondaynote.com/2012/12/09/5175/
|
|
|
Post by Rupert on Dec 11, 2012 6:17:52 GMT -8
Resistance/Support Monday 12/11/2012
|
|
|
Post by appledoc on Dec 11, 2012 6:19:39 GMT -8
Nice post Al! Only a paltry 10M share difference over that time frame. November 30 was after 505.75, so I'm wondering what the numbers looked like prior (I realize we'll never know).
|
|