|
Post by wheeles on Mar 7, 2013 16:24:37 GMT -8
This is the price that I plan to sell a large chunk of AAPLs, is why I didn't bother to sell when AAPL is rallying to $705 and then correct, thought it would be down to around $550-$600 and then charge up to $800-$1000 (thinking like Andy Zaky , luckily, for me, was planning to sell common and not pump new $ or sell common to BTO calls/bcs). Although EW did indicate a possibility of declining to this current price, just thought it won't because of my firm belief in Apple business, miscalculating what fund managers would do (my EQ is way below Zhuge Liang). It's a classic example of liquidity, or lack thereof, dictating the price. When you get a fool like Zaky continually pumping a stock and everyone piling in while the pros exit, a moderate drop in price can turn into a full blown rout as margins get called. This leads to a waterfall effect of ever lower prices and more called margins. Meanwhile the media try and pin reasons on the price move coming up with various cock and bull stories, when it really is just the impact of a sudden contraction in liquidity. It's worth noting that it can work in reverse too. Over-committed shorts can easily get squeezed to the stratosphere. We don't necessarily need a reason for AAPL to go up. The media will create one in response to a price move.
|
|
|
Post by lovemyipad on Mar 8, 2013 13:44:04 GMT -8
It's a classic example of liquidity, or lack thereof, dictating the price. When you get a fool like Zaky continually pumping a stock and everyone piling in while the pros exit, a moderate drop in price can turn into a full blown rout as margins get called. This leads to a waterfall effect of ever lower prices and more called margins. Meanwhile the media try and pin reasons on the price move coming up with various cock and bull stories, when it really is just the impact of a sudden contraction in liquidity. It's worth noting that it can work in reverse too. Over-committed shorts can easily get squeezed to the stratosphere. We don't necessarily need a reason for AAPL to go up. The media will create one in response to a price move. Completely concur!!!
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Mar 8, 2013 14:30:09 GMT -8
Do NOT concur, entirely anyway.
AAPL/Apple is a special case that makes crap like this possible IMHO. Crowded trade, hype or fire in the crowded theater, lax as hell regulatory environment making it more of a gambler's den than ever, moral hazard elimination through QE-infinity...
It's a complex stew, but AAPL/Apple being that special case is a key ingredient. If Apple were IBM, well we wouldn't be here. In oh, so many ways.
|
|
|
Post by lovemyipad on Mar 8, 2013 15:01:18 GMT -8
Mav, dunno. I think sentiment is cyclical and universal. AAPL is where it is in its life cycle. Check out IBM Quarterly Chart with Log Scale. Can see certain stretches where shareholders might have felt "Sucks to Be Us."
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Mar 8, 2013 15:09:48 GMT -8
Yes, it's all connected.
Yes, disconnects exist and can be justified or rationalized infinity ways.
Yes, Apple's growth is slowing. But a 9.x multiple when the S&P is pushing 15-16?
I can "accept" reality and still think it's irrational as hell.
|
|
|
Post by lovemyipad on Mar 8, 2013 15:15:59 GMT -8
Agree re: irrationality.
|
|
|
Post by wheeles on Mar 9, 2013 13:16:31 GMT -8
Do NOT concur, entirely anyway. What don't you agree with?
|
|
|
Post by wheeles on Mar 9, 2013 13:23:47 GMT -8
Yes, Apple's growth is slowing. But a 9.x multiple when the S&P is pushing 15-16? And why do you think that is? I maintain that it is all about a contraction in liquidity relating specifically to AAPL and new money (or returning money) isn't going to show up until we are done deflating the bubble that was pumped up by the likes of Mr Zaky and other AAPL evangelists.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2013 18:20:20 GMT -8
Yes, Apple's growth is slowing. But a 9.x multiple when the S&P is pushing 15-16? And why do you think that is? I maintain that it is all about a contraction in liquidity relating specifically to AAPL and new money (or returning money) isn't going to show up until we are done deflating the bubble that was pumped up by the likes of Mr Zaky and other AAPL evangelists. Wheeles, I don't think you can attribute the continued sell off from $522.08 (intraday/quarter low for June quarter) to Zaky and friends. Any sell off from that point has to be attributed to something else. From then until October earnings, AAPL was cruising along in the low $600s, with a brief move up to $700. From mid-November to Jan earnings AAPL seemed to find support between $500 and $520. It wasn't until January earnings report that AAPL started to sell off, in earnest, again. For me, the significant sell off catalysts were the misinterpreted earnings reports and subsequent guidance provided by management. While I have never liked Zaky's "interpretations and advice" (tried to get my sister to NOT subscribe) I don't think you can blame him for everything since AAPL peaked. The above references to misinterpreted earnings and guidance are what lead me to believe that April's report will be a major inflection point. July's report should be the catalyst for major upward moves by AAPL (provided it is good).
|
|
|
Post by lovemyipad on Mar 9, 2013 20:45:19 GMT -8
Wheeles, I don't think you can attribute the continued sell off from $522.08 (intraday/quarter low for June quarter) to Zaky and friends. ... While I have never liked Zaky's "interpretations and advice" (tried to get my sister to NOT subscribe) I don't think you can blame him for everything since AAPL peaked. Gregg, if I understood Birdie's posts correctly, he isn't attributing the sell off to Zaky types but the rise/bubble preceding the sell off. Pre-705, not post-705.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2013 4:13:29 GMT -8
Wheeles, I don't think you can attribute the continued sell off from $522.08 (intraday/quarter low for June quarter) to Zaky and friends. ... While I have never liked Zaky's "interpretations and advice" (tried to get my sister to NOT subscribe) I don't think you can blame him for everything since AAPL peaked. Gregg, if I understood Birdie's posts correctly, he isn't attributing the sell off to Zaky types but the rise/bubble preceding the sell off. Pre-705, not post-705. That's not how I interpreted his post, but it really doesn't matter who "is held responsible for the bubble". Clearly, since October earnings (see 1 year charts) AAPL is trading in response to the mis-perception (caused by the change in the way Apple guides) that Apple is on a 3 quarter run of missed numbers.
|
|
|
Post by mace on Mar 10, 2013 11:50:55 GMT -8
Recent comments by Warren Buffett means he is watching AAPL with interest. Deduced that he thinks AAPL is undervalued but not sufficiently undervalued for him. He needs at least 30% margin of safety to initiate a position. 80 cents for a dollar is not good enough, 70 cents or lower would be good to go. That would be around $400.
Bullish divergence occurs in daily and weekly charts.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Mar 10, 2013 11:57:23 GMT -8
Not really seeing the difference between 431 and 400 if you're playing the REALLY long game. (Oh, and the "devious" one if you ever read Buffett's mini-manifesto on stock price in a recent shareholder letter.) But maybe Buffett's feeling more like a trader these days.
|
|
|
Post by mace on Mar 10, 2013 12:03:25 GMT -8
Not really seeing the difference between 431 and 400 if you're playing the REALLY long game. (Oh, and the "devious" one if you ever read Buffett's mini-manifesto on stock price in a recent shareholder letter.) But maybe Buffett's feeling more like a trader these days. Hold forever is only true for KO as he would be left with 50% after paying capital gain tax for KO since the purchase price is mere cents. Time has changed, there is no such thing as hold forever.
|
|
|
Post by wheeles on Mar 10, 2013 13:54:46 GMT -8
Gregg, if I understood Birdie's posts correctly, he isn't attributing the sell off to Zaky types but the rise/bubble preceding the sell off. Pre-705, not post-705. That's not how I interpreted his post, but it really doesn't matter who "is held responsible for the bubble". Clearly, since October earnings (see 1 year charts) AAPL is trading in response to the mis-perception (caused by the change in the way Apple guides) that Apple is on a 3 quarter run of missed numbers. I attributed the latter part of the parabolic rise in AAPL to people like Zaky, which includes anyone who was putting themselves forward as an analyst, who were overly bullish and gave the impression that AAPL would never go down. This sort of thing doesn't just happen with AAPL, but with any hot stock. Any stock that goes parabolic will eventually stall when there isn't enough money (usually overly-leveraged) to sustain the accelerating climb higher. The persistent fall against most rational analysis of the fundamentals is down to several factors. Chief among those is an insufficient amount of money coming in to overwhelm people being willing (or forced) to sell at ever lower prices. Those that over-leveraged themselves on the way up are being forced out, often by people (or more likely machines) who look at various chart features and conclude that until more bullish technicals develop, selling/shorting is the only option. So they sell/short with no consideration of fundamentals. Those that have existing positions that are underwater want to buy more, but they completely lack the available cash (ie liquidity) to buy more. How often have I seen people posting on here wishing they had more cash to invest in AAPL? The media then picks up on the move down and try to explain it with tales of shortages, lack of demand. Often the stories are fed to them by parties that want prices lower and are often completely false. Sometimes the media just make stuff up. As the prices fall, sell-side analysts start to worry that they have price targets that are too high compared to the current price (25% above the current price is the usual level they try not to go above). So they lower their targets. Their peers follow them as they don't want the price target that is the most optimistic because it could lead to them losing their job if they are too far off. Only once the price has started to climb again do the average sell-side analysts begin to raise their targets again. There's really only a couple of instances when a sell-side analyst will pop their head up and get bullish when prices are falling. Either they want to provide a temporary bump in price to offload inventory which has been sold to them, or they have determined that things have fallen far enough and have filled their boots. Then they will go all out to pump the stock, and in the case of Goldman, the entire sector. Citi and Goldman tend to be the ones that are usually first out with notes that go against the prevailing trend. I've lost count of the number of times a note from Goldman has come at the start of a long run. If you see a note from them that goes against the prevailing trend, it's not a great idea to fade it, or at least not for a few days. When it comes to temporary price bumps, I am fairly certain that cat's paws like Doug Kass get fed rumors off the record, because they know his over-inflated ego cannot resist spreading them, and if he gets into trouble, then it's his problem, not theirs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2013 17:31:36 GMT -8
Citi and Goldman tend to be the ones that are usually first out with notes that go against the prevailing trend. I've lost count of the number of times a note from Goldman has come at the start of a long run. If you see a note from them that goes against the prevailing trend, it's not a great idea to fade it, or at least not for a few days. I would be interested to hear your take on what happened this week regarding the Citi report where they estimate that Apple will only earn $40.45 billion, below apples own guidance of $41-43 billion, and lowered their price target to $480. Despite this horrible report, the market had seemingly no reaction. Either the rest of Wall Street already agrees with Citi, so that's why there was no sell off (in which case apple making or beating its guidance should be extremely good for the share price), or the rest of Wall Street thinks Citi is talking shit, and expects apple to meet or exceed its own guidance. What do you think? Was this Citi trying to push down the price to get a good entry?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2013 17:37:51 GMT -8
Citi and Goldman tend to be the ones that are usually first out with notes that go against the prevailing trend. I've lost count of the number of times a note from Goldman has come at the start of a long run. If you see a note from them that goes against the prevailing trend, it's not a great idea to fade it, or at least not for a few days. I would be interested to hear your take on what happened this week regarding the Citi report where they estimate that Apple will only earn $40.45 billion, below apples own guidance of $41-43 billion, and lowered their price target to $480. Despite this horrible report, the market had seemingly no reaction. Either the rest of Wall Street already agrees with Citi, so that's why there was no sell off (in which case apple making or beating its guidance should be extremely good for the share price), or the rest of Wall Street thinks Citi is talking shit, and expects apple to meet or exceed its own guidance. What do you think? Was this Citi trying to push down the price to get a good entry? Are you sure I posted the above? I don't remember doing so.
|
|
|
Post by lovemyipad on Mar 10, 2013 18:04:14 GMT -8
Just an extra quote thingy in there. I edited.
|
|
|
Post by wheeles on Mar 11, 2013 10:52:44 GMT -8
What do you think? Was this Citi trying to push down the price to get a good entry? Quite probably. Many of the analysts strike me as the sort of people that wouldn't dare say anything against a large man when he's upright, but are the first to kick him when he's down, before going through his pockets.
|
|
|
Post by wheeles on Apr 22, 2013 12:41:37 GMT -8
A few people are complaining about Tim Cook as CEO, but to me he is not the problem. The problem is having Phil Schiller, a guy who started out as a programmer, as the head of marketing. While Steve was around, he was the de facto head of marketing and Schiller hung about in the background. Now Steve is gone, Schiller has done very little to wage a PR war on Samsung, HTC and others.
Meanwhile, the one person who perhaps could have done it, Forstall, was heading up iOS and then got the boot for the Maps fiasco.
Apple is missing a marketing genius. Tim Cook is an operations guy and is very good at that. However, he cannot be expected to be an excellent marketer too. Apple need to get a top marketing guy in, and move Schiller to a role that he's better suited to, as he's done next to nothing where marketing is concerned since Steve left.
|
|