Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on Oct 14, 2016 2:44:44 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on Oct 14, 2016 5:59:28 GMT -8
|
|
bud777
fire starter
Posts: 1,353
|
Post by bud777 on Oct 14, 2016 6:27:45 GMT -8
ms.mcmaster.ca/~grasselli/DeLongShleiferSummersWaldmann90.pdfI have been thinking about this paper since I posted it yesterday. For those who don't have time to read it, it is a pretty sophisticated analysis of the effect of noise traders on equities. A noise trader is someone who trades on the short term, based in information that they believe gives them an edge. In fact, the information either is not relevant or is so widely available that they are making an irrational decision.The paper demonstrates that in a market with this kind of irrational behavior, it is possible to make a greater return than in a market that moves solely on fundamentals or on technical analysis. There is some overlap here because believing that you have discovered a technical system that others have not is very similar to believing that you have noticed something about the stock that others have missed. Because noise traders are trading irrationally they assume greater risk than a fundamental trader. The paper shows that in the short term, this higher risk can lead to greater returns. Now, couple this theory to the fact that the majority of trades are driven by algorithms or, put another way, the wavelength of the noise is minutes or less and we begin to see why our favorite fruit company, the most widely held stock in the world, moves in such a counter intuitive manner. The FUD, the odd revisions to analyst predictions (I am looking at you, Deutsche Bank) may not be simply clickbait or a Samsung funded campaign, even though those are most certainly motivations. The real reason for this steady stream of "Apple is doomed" FUD is to create movement that the algorithms can exploit. The good news is that the fundamental traders will win in the long run, but if you do not have nerves of steel, this stock is not for you. The only way to succeed with Apple is either to hold for the long term, or to be smarter than the algorithms (Nagrani, how do you DO that?)
|
|
|
Post by tuffett on Oct 14, 2016 8:00:32 GMT -8
ms.mcmaster.ca/~grasselli/DeLongShleiferSummersWaldmann90.pdfI have been thinking about this paper since I posted it yesterday. For those who don't have time to read it, it is a pretty sophisticated analysis of the effect of noise traders on equities. A noise trader is someone who trades on the short term, based in information that they believe gives them an edge. In fact, the information either is not relevant or is so widely available that they are making an irrational decision.The paper demonstrates that in a market with this kind of irrational behavior, it is possible to make a greater return than in a market that moves solely on fundamentals or on technical analysis. There is some overlap here because believing that you have discovered a technical system that others have not is very similar to believing that you have noticed something about the stock that others have missed. Because noise traders are trading irrationally they assume greater risk than a fundamental trader. The paper shows that in the short term, this higher risk can lead to greater returns. Now, couple this theory to the fact that the majority of trades are driven by algorithms or, put another way, the wavelength of the noise is minutes or less and we begin to see why our favorite fruit company, the most widely held stock in the world, moves in such a counter intuitive manner. The FUD, the odd revisions to analyst predictions (I am looking at you, Deutsche Bank) may not be simply clickbait or a Samsung funded campaign, even though those are most certainly motivations. The real reason for this steady stream of "Apple is doomed" FUD is to create movement that the algorithms can exploit. The good news is that the fundamental traders will win in the long run, but if you do not have nerves of steel, this stock is not for you. The only way to succeed with Apple is either to hold for the long term, or to be smarter than the algorithms (Nagrani, how do you DO that?) I think a good way to invest in AAPL is on a longer term technical basis such as trading on the 200-day or 40-week moving averages. Historically, exiting your position when these levels are broken takes away a lot of the downside and has actually provided better returns than straight buy and hold. You can get back in after an XX% drop, or more conservatively, after the moving average is reclaimed to the upside. Just a thought, and something I will likely implement going forward.
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Oct 14, 2016 8:04:40 GMT -8
Excerpts from PED this morning: --- Huberty: Apple could be headed to $162 per share
Better-than-expected iPhone 7 sales, she says, are already priced into the stock..... In a note to clients Friday, Huberty modestly increased her iPhone estimates for fiscal 2016 Q4 (to 44 million from 43 million) and 2017 Q1 (74 million from 72 million) and nudged her 12-month price target up $1 (to $124 from $123). But that's old news, she says, largely priced into the stock's current price.
Not priced into the shares is her so-called bull case. "We're increasingly confident," she writes, "in the upcoming iPhone supercycle driving meaningful estimate revisions and the stock towards our $162 bull case."
Huberty has long offered a "bull" and "bear case" to go with her official "base case," but she rarely point to either with any conviction. This time is different, thanks to what she calls the coming iPhone supercycle—a combination of pent-demand from weak sales of the last two iPhones and growing interest in the next one—the 10th anniversary edition. Huberty has been banging the drum for the supercycle since June, and other Apple analysts are starting to pick up the theme.
|
|
|
Post by tuffett on Oct 14, 2016 8:14:32 GMT -8
Samsung adds another $3B to their expected loss on the Note 7, bringing the total to $5.3B
|
|
|
Post by tuffett on Oct 14, 2016 8:48:48 GMT -8
Excerpts from PED this morning: --- Huberty: Apple could be headed to $162 per shareBetter-than-expected iPhone 7 sales, she says, are already priced into the stock..... In a note to clients Friday, Huberty modestly increased her iPhone estimates for fiscal 2016 Q4 (to 44 million from 43 million) and 2017 Q1 (74 million from 72 million) and nudged her 12-month price target up $1 (to $124 from $123). But that's old news, she says, largely priced into the stock's current price.
Not priced into the shares is her so-called bull case. "We're increasingly confident," she writes, "in the upcoming iPhone supercycle driving meaningful estimate revisions and the stock towards our $162 bull case."
Huberty has long offered a "bull" and "bear case" to go with her official "base case," but she rarely point to either with any conviction. This time is different, thanks to what she calls the coming iPhone supercycle—a combination of pent-demand from weak sales of the last two iPhones and growing interest in the next one—the 10th anniversary edition. Huberty has been banging the drum for the supercycle since June, and other Apple analysts are starting to pick up the theme. With the extra week in FQ1, the much larger install base compared to the iPhone 6, and additional sales from Note 7 victims, am I the only one who thinks that 74 million would be disappointing? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad expectations are subdued but I personally expect to see something closer to 80 million.
|
|
stub
Member
The fix is in. Be patient. Don't panic.
Posts: 300
|
Post by stub on Oct 14, 2016 9:35:40 GMT -8
ms.mcmaster.ca/~grasselli/DeLongShleiferSummersWaldmann90.pdfI have been thinking about this paper since I posted it yesterday. For those who don't have time to read it, it is a pretty sophisticated analysis of the effect of noise traders on equities. A noise trader is someone who trades on the short term, based in information that they believe gives them an edge. In fact, the information either is not relevant or is so widely available that they are making an irrational decision.The paper demonstrates that in a market with this kind of irrational behavior, it is possible to make a greater return than in a market that moves solely on fundamentals or on technical analysis. There is some overlap here because believing that you have discovered a technical system that others have not is very similar to believing that you have noticed something about the stock that others have missed. Because noise traders are trading irrationally they assume greater risk than a fundamental trader. The paper shows that in the short term, this higher risk can lead to greater returns. Now, couple this theory to the fact that the majority of trades are driven by algorithms or, put another way, the wavelength of the noise is minutes or less and we begin to see why our favorite fruit company, the most widely held stock in the world, moves in such a counter intuitive manner. The FUD, the odd revisions to analyst predictions (I am looking at you, Deutsche Bank) may not be simply clickbait or a Samsung funded campaign, even though those are most certainly motivations. The real reason for this steady stream of "Apple is doomed" FUD is to create movement that the algorithms can exploit. The good news is that the fundamental traders will win in the long run, but if you do not have nerves of steel, this stock is not for you. The only way to succeed with Apple is either to hold for the long term, or to be smarter than the algorithms (Nagrani, how do you DO that?) The real reason for this steady stream of "Apple is doomed" FUD is to create movement that the algorithms can exploit. That's an UNDERSTATEMENT. Good one.
|
|
chinacat
Moderator
AAPL Long since 2006
Posts: 4,431
|
Post by chinacat on Oct 14, 2016 9:56:20 GMT -8
One more brief note about ApplePay at Desert Trip. Rather than being integrated into the typical credit card reader that one usually sees in stores, the equipment at each booth consisted of a (bluetooth? wifi?) sensor, which looked like a mini Apple TV (around 2" square), connected to an iPad; all were white. The whole thing looked very "Apple" and made me wonder whether this is a from the company or something put together by a third party.
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on Oct 14, 2016 10:50:57 GMT -8
Excerpts from PED this morning: --- Huberty: Apple could be headed to $162 per shareBetter-than-expected iPhone 7 sales, she says, are already priced into the stock..... In a note to clients Friday, Huberty modestly increased her iPhone estimates for fiscal 2016 Q4 (to 44 million from 43 million) and 2017 Q1 (74 million from 72 million) and nudged her 12-month price target up $1 (to $124 from $123). But that's old news, she says, largely priced into the stock's current price.
Not priced into the shares is her so-called bull case. "We're increasingly confident," she writes, "in the upcoming iPhone supercycle driving meaningful estimate revisions and the stock towards our $162 bull case."
Huberty has long offered a "bull" and "bear case" to go with her official "base case," but she rarely point to either with any conviction. This time is different, thanks to what she calls the coming iPhone supercycle—a combination of pent-demand from weak sales of the last two iPhones and growing interest in the next one—the 10th anniversary edition. Huberty has been banging the drum for the supercycle since June, and other Apple analysts are starting to pick up the theme. With the extra week in FQ1, the much larger install base compared to the iPhone 6, and additional sales from Note 7 victims, am I the only one who thinks that 74 million would be disappointing? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad expectations are subdued but I personally expect to see something closer to 80 million. PERHAPS you are. EDIT: does not predict iPhone sales.... LAST YEAR: We expect revenue to be between $75.5 and $77.5 billion compared to $74.6 billion in the year ago quarter. (last year in January, reported: We generated all-time record quarterly revenue of $75.9 billion in the December quarter, in line with our expectations and up 2% over last year's blockbuster results.) I believe Luca will suggest 74 million as the high end. IMHO: US carriers are ALWAYS promoting Android. I believe Pixel will be a dud. BUT there are many ANDROID devices out there not made by SAMSUNG. It is October 2017 that begins the supercycle.
|
|
|
Post by dreamRaj on Oct 14, 2016 11:23:24 GMT -8
A decent beat for this quarter and a Q1 guidance above 80 Bln will have us testing ATH easily.
The positive reaction toward iPhone 7 (especially the Plus) coupled with Samsung victims/potential buyers who will now be favoring the iPhone should easily make this possible.
|
|
|
Post by nagrani on Oct 14, 2016 13:01:00 GMT -8
ms.mcmaster.ca/~grasselli/DeLongShleiferSummersWaldmann90.pdfI have been thinking about this paper since I posted it yesterday. For those who don't have time to read it, it is a pretty sophisticated analysis of the effect of noise traders on equities. A noise trader is someone who trades on the short term, based in information that they believe gives them an edge. In fact, the information either is not relevant or is so widely available that they are making an irrational decision.The paper demonstrates that in a market with this kind of irrational behavior, it is possible to make a greater return than in a market that moves solely on fundamentals or on technical analysis. There is some overlap here because believing that you have discovered a technical system that others have not is very similar to believing that you have noticed something about the stock that others have missed. Because noise traders are trading irrationally they assume greater risk than a fundamental trader. The paper shows that in the short term, this higher risk can lead to greater returns. Now, couple this theory to the fact that the majority of trades are driven by algorithms or, put another way, the wavelength of the noise is minutes or less and we begin to see why our favorite fruit company, the most widely held stock in the world, moves in such a counter intuitive manner. The FUD, the odd revisions to analyst predictions (I am looking at you, Deutsche Bank) may not be simply clickbait or a Samsung funded campaign, even though those are most certainly motivations. The real reason for this steady stream of "Apple is doomed" FUD is to create movement that the algorithms can exploit. The good news is that the fundamental traders will win in the long run, but if you do not have nerves of steel, this stock is not for you. The only way to succeed with Apple is either to hold for the long term, or to be smarter than the algorithms (Nagrani, how do you DO that?) Hahaha. I wish man. I have built a technical analysis black box that has some success but it's mostly gut trading. Like today - I bought over bunch of contracts in the Jan 2018 100 calls because I think we are going to pop big on Monday. But I could be wrong of course. Lets see
|
|