|
Post by appledoc on Jul 6, 2013 14:27:29 GMT -8
Technicals for dummies: buy at the close when daily MACDh has bullish divergence, and sell at the close when daily MACDh has bearish divergence (or you've reached a profit you are happy with). Only employ this with commons. And stay out of earnings entirely. You may catch a bad day here and there, but you'll always avoid the multi-day major sell-offs. So looking back through 2013, this is what I get when you employ this strategy (buy at bullish divergence, sell at bearish divergence, avoid earnings): - Buy 10 shares on Jan 16 (first time MACDh has bullish divergence in 2013) @ 506.09 (assume you start with $5060.90 cash). - Buy max # of shares using the total cash you have after each sale. - Currently own 14 shares with a cost basis of 396.53. - Also have $83.62 in cash. - If you had sold on Friday at the close, you'd have $5927.50 cash and be up $866.60 (17.1%) for the year. Not too shabby given that AAPL has lost 17.5% of its value at the first trade.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2013 16:20:38 GMT -8
Technicals for Non-Technicals Chart: Thank you for posting this chart. I continue to be fascinated that technical analysis seems to work. ( I know, until it doesn't). What fascinates me is that a process with so many influences and subject to emotional factors can be predictable to levels like 61.8%. So I read a little more and now I understand that the 61.8% is based on Fibonacci numbers and that Fibonacci numbers are everywhere in nature so maybe they apply in the stock market. So let's assume that this is the case...that the market is just like other natural processes in important ways and thus this macro behavior can be used to explain and predict. In other words, the behavior described and predicted by Fibonacci numbers is the consequence of underlying functions of growth and decline (in buyers and sellers). Let me call this the "Fibonacci behavior". If that is the case, it seems worthwhile to examine the system in terms of the functions directly. The behavior of a dynamic system is certainly going to be difficult to predict, especially when feedback (i.e. momentum) is involved, but additional complications like the variable amount of money available to buy stock, the relative momentum of other stocks (e.g. Google) and other factors would complicate the system behavior beyond "Fibonacci behavior". I think we can use systems dynamics to model this more complicated hypothesis. This model could be validated by restricting the external factors and seeing if it behaves in keeping with the projections of normal TA. Then the external factors can be enhanced to provide a richer alternative to TA. I have been thinking about this for about a year and have made a few initial attempts. One of the fundamental building blocks of a model like this is the mechanism used to model price changes. It is important to relate the change in price to the difference between the perceived value and the current price. But the relationship should also be influenced by the number of potential buyers and sellers. Of course, as the price changes, these numbers change as well. I would be interested in hearing how others view this relationship. I know "When there are more buyers than sellers the price goes up" and vice versa, but I am looking for a function that gives the new price in terms of the perceived value, the current price, the number of buyers and the number of sellers. If I get this thing working, I will make it available here. If you have any ideas on this function, please let me know. It would be fascinating if your work paid off! Best of luck. I believe TA can make people a more successful trader, but only because it influences stock prices because so many people are using the same TA theory - not because TA itself is actually a proven valid scientific method. It's entirely possible that the Fib percentage numbers seem to "work" in stock technical analysis because a significant number of traders and algorithms use the same Fib percentage numbers as trading entry/exit points. Therefore its a self reinforcing theory that may not naturally exist in the first place. Any Technical Analysis theory of stock analysis that has a significant enough amount of market participants believing in it will become self reinforcing. For instance if enough people believe Astrology had a direct impact on stock prices, then you would actually see correlation in stock technical analysis as people started using the same astrological theory as buy/sell triggers. Maybe that explains trading in Amazon. Anyway I'm not looking to start arguments, as I'm sure many here use TA successfully and I would as well if I was a frequent trader. Plus it would have saved me a bunch of moolah in the great AAPL downturn of the last 9 months, which itself was likely exacerbated by TA.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jul 6, 2013 16:28:44 GMT -8
Just one thing: Technicals mean different things to different people.
To me, it's an instrument panel aside from the speedometer (price). Price is truth, and the technicals help measure and track it. Subjectivity comes into play reading and acting on the technical readings you see.
|
|
|
Post by lovemyipad on Jul 6, 2013 17:33:13 GMT -8
Just one thing: Technicals mean different things to different people. To me, it's an instrument panel aside from the speedometer (price). Price is truth, and the technicals help measure and track it. Subjectivity comes into play reading and acting on the technical readings you see. +1 Once upon a time, in a land far, far away (otherwise known as AFB1), I never, ever would have believed Mav and I could agree on this subject! P.S. TA is more analogous to astronomy than astrology. ;D
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jul 6, 2013 17:38:38 GMT -8
I still likes my fundamentals.
But for tactical trading, you need more real-time stuff. Technicals provide the readings, not a guarantee for success, don't I know it... But at least now I "understand" (a tiny bit) what the hell is going on in these distorted markets. I figure as long as my trading account has enough to make trades, I'm never out of the game.
AAPL _will_ bounce back. Technicals just helps give a little advance notice.
|
|
|
Post by lovemyipad on Jul 6, 2013 17:41:09 GMT -8
Yep.
|
|
|
Post by Red Shirted Ensign on Jul 6, 2013 20:43:52 GMT -8
Yep. Hmmmm. Lovey and Mav all simpatico.... Next we'll have Mercel and Nate exchanging recipes.....
|
|
|
Post by lovemyipad on Jul 6, 2013 20:54:12 GMT -8
Red, that's low...
|
|
|
Post by madmaxroi on Jul 6, 2013 21:13:46 GMT -8
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jul 6, 2013 21:34:11 GMT -8
SMITE RED! SMITE HIM!
oh
yeah, I think nate must've been a troll. Nothing added up. Take it from a guy for whom not much adds up in this market (that would be me).
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jul 6, 2013 23:22:34 GMT -8
It's official. 2.5 weeks to earning(s). From the Apple IR website: Fun fact: For two quarters in a row, Apple's deliberately chosen to say "Earning Release". Huh?!? (And people worry there aren't any Steve Jobs-type sticklers for... something still at Apple.)
|
|
|
Post by Nevyn on Jul 7, 2013 2:45:01 GMT -8
Just one thing: Technicals mean different things to different people. To me, it's an instrument panel aside from the speedometer (price). Price is truth, and the technicals help measure and track it. Subjectivity comes into play reading and acting on the technical readings you see. +1 Once upon a time, in a land far, far away (otherwise known as AFB1), I never, ever would have believed Mav and I could agree on this subject! P.S. TA is more analogous to astronomy than astrology. ;D Yes, astronomy but before Kepler, Copernicus and Newton.
|
|
|
Post by lucy on Jul 7, 2013 4:30:07 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by rob_london on Jul 7, 2013 6:42:40 GMT -8
If anyone missed this piece first time around, I highly recommend this long post by ex-Apple employee Bruce Tognazzini on the Apple iWatch: asktog.com/atc/apple-iwatch/#ForumP.S. The forum contributions are also well worth reading. Tognazzini wonders whether at some future date, Apple could also license iWatch technology to luxury watch manufacturers. Paul Deneve's 'special projects' at Apple?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2013 7:27:22 GMT -8
If anyone missed this piece first time around, I highly recommend this long post by ex-Apple employee Bruce Tognazzini on the Apple iWatch: asktog.com/atc/apple-iwatch/#ForumThanks Rob! This is awesome stuff and represents what I've been expecting from iWrist (for lack of better name). Highly recommended reading and it comes from a very credible source.
|
|
|
Post by Red Shirted Ensign on Jul 7, 2013 9:38:10 GMT -8
If anyone missed this piece first time around, I highly recommend this long post by ex-Apple employee Bruce Tognazzini on the Apple iWatch: asktog.com/atc/apple-iwatch/#ForumThanks Rob! This is awesome stuff and represents what I've been expecting from iWrist (for lack of better name). Highly recommended reading and it comes from a very credible source. Terrific article. So logical and well-reasoned. To the question so often asked:" why would I need/want this?" The answer....how could you not want it? As for my earlier crack about Nate...I apologize...he got out at a decent price by today's standards,so good for him....it's just he was so damn annoying.....I need more coffee..
|
|
|
Post by rob_london on Jul 7, 2013 10:03:08 GMT -8
Thanks Rob! This is awesome stuff and represents what I've been expecting from iWrist (for lack of better name). Highly recommended reading and it comes from a very credible source. Terrific article. So logical and well-reasoned. To the question so often asked:" why would I need/want this?" The answer....how could you not want it? As for my earlier crack about Nate...I apologize...he got out at a decent price by today's standards,so good for him....it's just he was so damn annoying.....I need more coffee.. Interested to read on his bio that Bruce Tognazzini designed Apple's first human interface and wrote eight editions of the Human Interface Guidelines. It would be fascinating to know his thoughts on certain design choices made in iOS 7 (i.e readability of the ultra thin font in bright sunlight and the yellow text on white background in the Notes app).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2013 10:08:28 GMT -8
If anyone missed this piece first time around, I highly recommend this long post by ex-Apple employee Bruce Tognazzini on the Apple iWatch: asktog.com/atc/apple-iwatch/#ForumP.S. The forum contributions are also well worth reading. Tognazzini wonders whether at some future date, Apple could also license iWatch technology to luxury watch manufacturers. Paul Deneve's 'special projects' at Apple? My iWatch functionality education is complete, not that I know EVERYTHING an iWatch can do, but what the potential IS. A few of the examples Tog gave (plus the blood/glucose app by Dr. Topol) would have me willingly shelling out $300 - $400 for the described device, and that may be cheap. Looking at others copying the technology, I find that would be near impossible due to the requirement/need for seamless integration to an infrastructure of the type that only Apple has been building (for the past 5+ years). "Not innovating my ass" is going to become a trademark.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2013 10:14:05 GMT -8
It's official. 2.5 weeks to earning(s). From the Apple IR website: Fun fact: For two quarters in a row, Apple's deliberately chosen to say "Earning Release". Huh?!? (And people worry there aren't any Steve Jobs-type sticklers for... something still at Apple.) I can't figure out the significance of the singular, as opposed to the more traditional plural context. Anybody?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2013 10:17:04 GMT -8
Sometimes you just have to be beaten over the head wit a baseball bat (been there done that, got the stitches), to see the possibilities.
Not only do I now see the potential of an iWatch product CATEGORY, I want one.
As a revenue generator, I think an iWatch has the potential to be more important than the iPod was at its peak, by a factor of 2X. Its contribution to earnings will be iPhone like (50+% Gross Margins, 40+% Operating Income, EPS contribution $5.00+).
My iWatch estimates are based on full year (fiscal 2016) unit sales equal to 50% of iPhone unit sales (fiscal 2013) with an ASP of $400.
Without a coherent, fully integrated iWatch capability, Android (and all other mobile OSs) are dead meat. Seriously, whose going to foot the bill for the server farms, unified "iCloud" backend, with device integration equal to Apple's current in place ecosystem. It would require a merger of HTC, Samsung, Motorola, Google and Microsoft resources to match Apple's resources, and 5+ years to implement a viable strategy. Of all the CEOs available, who would be able to forge a single, homogeneous culture from all those entities, capable of the task before them?
I can't think of a single one.
Jobs single greatest achievement: he built an entity that carries his DNA and survives him.
|
|
|
Post by rob_london on Jul 7, 2013 10:47:39 GMT -8
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jul 7, 2013 10:52:07 GMT -8
Not saying the article/author don't have their merits, but do note he says he was at Apple until '92. So while he knows more about Apple than I ever will, his info isn't as current as he could be. His Wikipedia page is also kinda interesting.
For now, I'll just say that NFC, heh. If it's not in the iPhone, there's no point in it being in any Apple product. Wave 'n Pray might just fade away. An iWatch can't just be an iOS companion. It also needs to be compelling on its own. There isn't a single iPod or iOS ultramobile that requires anything more than an occasional sync to be fully useful.
|
|
|
Post by Red Shirted Ensign on Jul 7, 2013 10:58:58 GMT -8
Sometimes you just have to be beaten over the head wit a baseball bat (been there done that, got the stitches), to see the possibilities. Not only do I now see the potential of an iWatch product CATEGORY, I want one. As a revenue generator, I think an iWatch has the potential to be more important than the iPod was at its peak, by a factor of 2X. Its contribution to earnings will be iPhone like (50+% Gross Margins, 40+% Operating Income, EPS contribution $5.00+). My iWatch estimates are based on full year (fiscal 2016) unit sales equal to 50% of iPhone unit sales (fiscal 2013) with an ASP of $400. Without a coherent, fully integrated iWatch capability, Android (and all other mobile OSs) are dead meat. Seriously, whose going to foot the bill for the server farms, unified "iCloud" backend, with device integration equal to Apple's current in place ecosystem. It would require a merger of HTC, Samsung, Motorola, Google and Microsoft resources to match Apple's resources, and 5+ years to implement a viable strategy. Of all the CEOs available, who would be able to forge a single, homogeneous culture from all those entities, capable of the task before them? I can't think of a single one. Jpbs single greatest achievement: he built an entity that carries his DNA and survives him. Gregg, you have come a long way in one week....from an 80 dollar gadget to an indispensable part of your life....keep going...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2013 11:10:46 GMT -8
Not saying the article/author don't have their merits, but do note he says he was at Apple until '92. So while he knows more about Apple than I ever will, his info isn't as current as he could be. His Wikipedia page is also kinda interesting. For now, I'll just say that NFC, heh. If it's not in the iPhone, there's no point in it being in any Apple product. Wave 'n Pray might just fade away. An iWatch can't just be an iOS companion. It also needs to be compelling on its own. There isn't a single iPod or iOS ultramobile that requires anything more than an occasional sync to be fully useful. His time at Apple is irrelevant. What is relevant is the potential of what Apple could do with existing technologies, and how that product would be accretive to Apple's current ecosystem/financials. THAT fits right in there with what Apple did to the digital music industry, mobile handset industry and tablet industry. Apple didn't invent them, Apple made them better, then integrated them into a single product family (reminds me of the old BASF commercials, "We don't make xxx, we make them better"). I wonder how Jobs communicated his vision to Apple's Board, then convinced them all to resign, when they gave him the reins back in '97?
|
|
|
Post by rob_london on Jul 7, 2013 11:10:45 GMT -8
Sometimes you just have to be beaten over the head wit a baseball bat (been there done that, got the stitches), to see the possibilities. Not only do I now see the potential of an iWatch product CATEGORY, I want one. As a revenue generator, I think an iWatch has the potential to be more important than the iPod was at its peak, by a factor of 2X. Its contribution to earnings will be iPhone like (50+% Gross Margins, 40+% Operating Income, EPS contribution $5.00+). My iWatch estimates are based on full year (fiscal 2016) unit sales equal to 50% of iPhone unit sales (fiscal 2013) with an ASP of $400. Without a coherent, fully integrated iWatch capability, Android (and all other mobile OSs) are dead meat. Seriously, whose going to foot the bill for the server farms, unified "iCloud" backend, with device integration equal to Apple's current in place ecosystem. It would require a merger of HTC, Samsung, Motorola, Google and Microsoft resources to match Apple's resources, and 5+ years to implement a viable strategy. Of all the CEOs available, who would be able to forge a single, homogeneous culture from all those entities, capable of the task before them? I can't think of a single one. Jpbs single greatest achievement: he built an entity that carries his DNA and survives him. For what its worth, this is what Huberty of Morgan Stanley had to say back in February: "Huberty's analysis of the market potential for the recently rumored Apple iWatch product -- which she admits no direct knowledge of -- found that it could drive an incremental $10 to $15 billion in revenue, or $2.50 to $4.00 in EPS, each year. The estimate assumes a 20% attach rate to the roughly half a billion active iTunes users and sell-through of 50 million units yearly at and an average selling price between $200 and $300. Those figures would double or triple should Apple see the percentage of current iTunes users who would purchase or "attach" an iWatch to their Apple ecosystem -- jump to 40% and 60%, respectively. Huberty's estimates also assume an average lifespan or consumer update cycle of 2-years for each iWatch sold."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2013 11:25:23 GMT -8
For what its worth, this is what Huberty of Morgan Stanley had to say back in February: "Huberty's analysis of the market potential for the recently rumored Apple iWatch product -- which she admits no direct knowledge of -- found that it could drive an incremental $10 to $15 billion in revenue, or $2.50 to $4.00 in EPS, each year. The estimate assumes a 20% attach rate to the roughly half a billion active iTunes users and sell-through of 50 million units yearly at an average selling price between $200 and $300. Those figures would double or triple should Apple see the percentage of current iTunes users who would purchase or "attach" an iWatch to their Apple ecosystem -- jump to 40% and 60%, respectively. Huberty's estimates also assume an average lifespan or consumer update cycle of 2-years for each iWatch sold." My estimates were calculated using arbitrarily selected data points generated in 2013, with results ocurring in 2016. There was nothing 'scientific' about my estimates. Still, its fun to see how close they approximate another's results.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2013 11:27:24 GMT -8
Gregg, you have come a long way in one week....from an 80 dollar gadget to an indispensable part of your life....keep going... I just needed to understand the value proposition, aka open my mind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2013 12:09:20 GMT -8
My estimates were calculated using arbitrarily selected data points generated in 2013, with results ocurring in 2016. There was nothing 'scientific' about my estimates. Still, its fun to see how close they approximate another's results. Giving this some more thought: elimination of unneeded technologies (wi-Fi, cellular radio, retina screen, screen size, etc.), I think ASP could easily drop to ~$250, while maintaing Gross Margin %. Implied drop in revenue would be greatly offset by more affordable unit sales volume. An ASP in the $250-$300 range would seriously strain competitors' abilities to match comparable functionality, product quality and customer satisfaction, as though a seriously splintered Android wouldn't be enough to stop them cold in their collective tracks. Envisioning the avalanche of Galaxy to iPhone switchers is titillating. I think this also ties in nicely with Apple's goals to control iPhone sales to a much greater degree. Come into an Apple Store for an iWatch and upgrade your iPhone (trade-in program) while you're there. A dual product sale (with Gross Margin %s of these 2 products, and all the ecosystem stickiness that ensues) gives Apple a great deal of marketing flexibility. Once WS figures this out (and assuming that the registering of the iWatch trademark is not a diversionary tactic) I can see AAPL's ISM rising dramatically up to 50% within 9 months of launch. As an aside: I've been thinking of purchasing an unsubsidized iPhone 5x when launched, then selling my current iPhone 5. Less than 1 year (at that time) later my ATT contract expires, then I'll let the carriers compete for my business.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2013 12:46:35 GMT -8
Institutional Ownership is now at 62.00% (up from 61.90%). That's its highest level since last January.
In the next few weeks, as end of quarter ownership filings are reported, I expect the % to rise to ~62.50%.
If I may, I'd like to paraphrase a Churchill speech (with apologies to family and friends across the pond for inaccuracies), "But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning".
|
|
|
Post by appledoc on Jul 7, 2013 13:11:46 GMT -8
If anyone missed this piece first time around, I highly recommend this long post by ex-Apple employee Bruce Tognazzini on the Apple iWatch: asktog.com/atc/apple-iwatch/#ForumP.S. The forum contributions are also well worth reading. Tognazzini wonders whether at some future date, Apple could also license iWatch technology to luxury watch manufacturers. Paul Deneve's 'special projects' at Apple? Don't like his thought that music would still be played from the iOS device rather than the watch. The fact that the iPod was released more than 12 years ago and there still isn't a waterproof iOS device or reliable waterproof fitness-appropriate case available is absurd. The watch should play music and be truly waterproof. The only other feature could be telling time and they would sell millions out of the gate. Nobody wants to work out with their $600 iPhone. They just don't have a choice right now.
|
|