Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on May 10, 2019 2:07:47 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by sponge on May 10, 2019 6:44:14 GMT -8
It almost appears as if WS is anticipating bad news from aapl in China.
OI interest for next week indicates 10 points lower then my 190 target.
|
|
|
Post by pauls on May 10, 2019 7:19:03 GMT -8
Just another day in Trump World. Mexico will pay for the wall, China will pay the tariffs. Nothing to do but stay glued to his twitter feed to see what's next.
|
|
|
Post by david on May 10, 2019 7:26:31 GMT -8
It almost appears as if WS is anticipating bad news from aapl in China. ... It’s almost as if WS anticipates a huge loss of stock market value resulting from a frivolous trade war. Just a theory though.
|
|
|
Post by mercel on May 10, 2019 7:37:54 GMT -8
It almost appears as if WS is anticipating bad news from aapl in China. OI interest for next week indicates 10 points lower then my 190 target. You're misreading OI for May 17, which is signaling AAPL will close higher than 200, where puts outnumber calls.
|
|
|
Post by mercel on May 10, 2019 7:44:51 GMT -8
Keep your eye on the prize: I've heard from multiple, reliable Apple cognoscenti that this WWDC will be bigger than most.
|
|
|
Post by sponge on May 10, 2019 8:18:30 GMT -8
It almost appears as if WS is anticipating bad news from aapl in China. OI interest for next week indicates 10 points lower then my 190 target. You're misreading OI for May 17, which is signaling AAPL will close higher than 200, where puts outnumber calls. Maybe We will see since the MACD turned bearish for a week now and it is accelerating to the down side. We did bounce off the 50 MA which could be support for a while. I am looking more at SPY which also suggests further downside. It will see a more clear picture in how we close today and where we are on Monday. WDCC is always good. But the iPhone lineup for Sept is not impressive. Guidance in Oct and April next year will confirm my views.
|
|
|
Post by mercel on May 10, 2019 8:28:27 GMT -8
MACD? Is that a new menu item at McDonalds?
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,622
|
Post by 4aapl on May 10, 2019 8:46:05 GMT -8
There are times where I don't like the way Apple has gone in certain aspects. For me, those are times where Apple is overly fancy, and costly (money and time), in ways that don't really matter much. I try to be efficient. As a kid straight out of college working as a process engineer at Motorola, it was all about increasing efficiencies. Improving yield on one step of the chip making process might make the overall yield on that product increase .1%, with a valuation of millions per year. Then at Apple, as a QA engineer it was all about finding problems, whether UI, functional, performance, or other things. My upper manager there talked about how he spent time each day trying to figure out how to personally be more efficient, until he realized that he was now spending more time working on that then he was improving. Thus for efficiency he now had to lay off on trying to find ways to become more efficient. From the flyover, the first glance of the stage backdrop made me think they used inflatable tubes (like a bounce house or dancing man), and I was impressed. It would be something that could quickly be put up and taken down, and also something that could be quickly and easily customized for different needs. Like the huge Think Different banners that went up ~15 years ago at the Infinite Loop campus, as opposed to something painted onto the building. But that wasn't what happened... "Shocker! The rainbow Apple Stage took a massive amount of work to create." Sometimes Apple acts like the spoiled brat that has way too much cash in his pocket. I'd rather Apple focused on the things that matter most (usability, performance, functionality, features, stability, upgradability, etc....for SW and HW, current and upcoming), instead of trying to push the envelope on some of these minor things (stage backsplash, giant glass (curved and flat), milled instead of stamped aluminum cases, etc). But that's the thing, deciding when something is enough. On some things, it's more apparent, such as the maximum ability of the eye to see pixels (though originally the "retinal displays" were at standard usage distance, I could see exceeding those when trying to inspect something closely). On other things, it's a tougher line to find. But like Buffet just said, while money is important, time (and love) can't be bought and are even more precious (sounding like the country song). Unless there is a surplus of top notch designers, the time spent by the team on making it's own colorful arches is time not spend on other projects. Apple repeats how it focuses on it's projects, setting aside a lot of interests in order to maintain that focus on the important SW and HW products. It seems like the design team needs to adopt this focus too.
|
|
chinacat
Moderator
AAPL Long since 2006
Posts: 4,426
|
Post by chinacat on May 10, 2019 9:26:41 GMT -8
There are times where I don't like the way Apple has gone in certain aspects. For me, those are times where Apple is overly fancy, and costly (money and time), in ways that don't really matter much. As a former software engineer, manager and small business owner, I pretty much agree with you. However, in my experience, folks involved in the more creative activities benefit from occasional assignments that allow them to think outside of their usual responsibilities and involve a bit of whimsy, so I am not surprised that Ives' team is responsible. I guess the bottom line is I trust Tim to pick and choose when it is appropriate, and certainly the fact that it is for "a celebration of the formal opening of Apple Park" makes it seem less whimsical than it might otherwise. As always, YMMV
|
|
|
Post by pauls on May 10, 2019 9:33:31 GMT -8
“It is in Apple’s DNA that technology alone is not enough—it’s technology married with liberal arts, married with the humanities"
They are just walking the talk. I like it. As for expense in money and talent, well spent. Corporate culture is as important as anything else for Apple at this size.
|
|
chinacat
Moderator
AAPL Long since 2006
Posts: 4,426
|
Post by chinacat on May 10, 2019 9:37:42 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by mrentropy on May 10, 2019 9:43:05 GMT -8
“Past performance is no guarantee..”, However, last time we had a “Golden Cross” (50sma crossing above 200sma), the stock soon went down to test the 50 and 200 day averages, much as it is doing right now. So far, that support is holding. If history repeats, there should be a bounce off of this support. It did re-test it again, but kept climbing. This isn’t trading advice, but perhaps an admonition not to panic.
If we breakdown below the 200sma though....
|
|
Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on May 10, 2019 9:45:19 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by sponge on May 10, 2019 9:49:20 GMT -8
“Past performance is no guarantee..”, However, last time we had a “Golden Cross” (50sma crossing above 200sma), the stock soon went down to test the 50 and 200 day averages, much as it is doing right now. So far, that support is holding. If history repeats, there should be a bounce off of this support. It did re-test it again, but kept climbing. This isn’t trading advice, but perhaps an admonition not to panic. If we breakdown below the 200sma though.... Yes that makes sense The issue is that aapl is showing decreased earnings moving forward
|
|
Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on May 10, 2019 10:56:20 GMT -8
My stink bid executed so hopefully AAPL bounces.
Then again, the dividend is paid on the 16th... How many bet the price will be above today's price? 🤔
|
|
|
Post by nwjade on May 10, 2019 13:17:57 GMT -8
Nice week Airplane's 'Looks like I picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue' for a little comic relief...
Here's to a return to sanity next week, everyone have a good weekend!
|
|
|
Post by mercel on May 10, 2019 17:27:06 GMT -8
“Past performance is no guarantee..”, However, last time we had a “Golden Cross” (50sma crossing above 200sma), the stock soon went down to test the 50 and 200 day averages, much as it is doing right now. So far, that support is holding. If history repeats, there should be a bounce off of this support. It did re-test it again, but kept climbing. This isn’t trading advice, but perhaps an admonition not to panic. If we breakdown below the 200sma though.... Yes that makes sense The issue is that aapl is showing decreased earnings moving forward 🙄
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,182
|
Post by JDSoCal on May 12, 2019 11:13:03 GMT -8
I’m old enough to remember when Democrats wanted to be tough on China. 🤷🏻♂️ But if Trump personally cured cancer, people would be tweeting,
“Trump puts oncologists out of work.”
Can’t think of a better dip period to buy, when you know this trade stuff will eventually work itself out.
|
|
|
Post by Luckychoices on May 12, 2019 16:08:39 GMT -8
I’m old enough to remember when Democrats wanted to be tough on China. 🤷🏻♂️ Hey, I'm *way* older than you JD because I can remember when the Republicans were considered the “law and order” party. 🤷🏻♂️
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,182
|
Post by JDSoCal on May 12, 2019 16:53:41 GMT -8
I’m old enough to remember when Democrats wanted to be tough on China. 🤷🏻♂️ Hey, I'm *way* older than you JD because I can remember when the Republicans were considered the “law and order” party. 🤷🏻♂️ OK, I’ll bite. After the IC spent 2 years and millions of dollars and scores of lawyers, and all they found out is that the Obama Admin launched a coup attempt at a duly elected president. All for a made up crime of “collusion.” Not sure what law was broken, other than the political crimes of the FBI starting this witch hunt, er, insurance policy for Hillary Clinton.
|
|
|
Post by david on May 12, 2019 18:21:49 GMT -8
Hey, I'm *way* older than you JD because I can remember when the Republicans were considered the “law and order” party. 🤷🏻♂️ OK, I’ll bite. After the IC spent 2 years and millions of dollars and scores of lawyers, and all they found out is that the Obama Admin launched a coup attempt at a duly elected president. All for a made up crime of “collusion.” Not sure what law was broken, other than the political crimes of the FBI starting this witch hunt, er, insurance policy for Hillary Clinton. I thought you were a lawyer? You Haven’t read Mueller’s report.
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,182
|
Post by JDSoCal on May 12, 2019 18:52:56 GMT -8
OK, I’ll bite. After the IC spent 2 years and millions of dollars and scores of lawyers, and all they found out is that the Obama Admin launched a coup attempt at a duly elected president. All for a made up crime of “collusion.” Not sure what law was broken, other than the political crimes of the FBI starting this witch hunt, er, insurance policy for Hillary Clinton. I thought you were a lawyer? You Haven’t read Mueller’s report. Yes I am a lawyer. Also a degree in Poli Sci and I think special counsels are unconstitutional and scary AF in a republic. But last time I checked, this witch hunt that was started on a faked dossier investigating a crime that doesn’t exist (no such crime as “collusion”) led to no recommendations for indictments. 🤷🏻♂️ In our legal system, prosecutors don’t exonerate. They perform the binary functions of “[ask grand jury to] indict” or do not ask grand jury to indict. This was all done under the impression that the Hillary Clinton DOJ would be in charge of these political witch hunts. I’ve got a feeling Dems aren’t going to like the turnabout when the Barr DOJ is done with Comey and his co-conspirators. 🤷🏻♂️
|
|
|
Post by david on May 13, 2019 5:44:14 GMT -8
I thought you were a lawyer? You Haven’t read Mueller’s report. Yes I am a lawyer. Also a degree in Poli Sci and I think special counsels are unconstitutional and scary AF in a republic. But last time I checked, this witch hunt that was started on a faked dossier investigating a crime that doesn’t exist (no such crime as “collusion”) led to no recommendations for indictments. 🤷🏻♂️ In our legal system, prosecutors don’t exonerate. They perform the binary functions of “[ask grand jury to] indict” or do not ask grand jury to indict. This was all done under the impression that the Hillary Clinton DOJ would be in charge of these political witch hunts. I’ve got a feeling Dems aren’t going to like the turnabout when the Barr DOJ is done with Comey and his co-conspirators. 🤷🏻♂️ Haven’t read Mueller’s report, though, have you? Or even a few pages. A lawyer who can’t be bothered by facts.
|
|
|
Post by macster on May 13, 2019 6:57:23 GMT -8
Replying to David. You'l find many dissenting positions although (with bias) I cherry picked the ones who answered the question of...Did the president obstruct justice? Found these on Quora and you can read them all. www.quora.com/Can-a-person-be-charged-with-obstruction-of-justice-if-no-crime-has-been-committedMark Pollot, J.D. Constitutional Law & Civil Rights, University of San Diego School of Law (1986) Answered Mar 27, 2019 · Author has 83 answers and 15.5k answer views He cannot obstruct justice by exercising his exclusive authority to fire his appointees for any reason or no reason at all. He doesn’t Even have to give a reason. Congress tried twice to restrict that authority by statute. In fact, the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, Lincoln’s VP who succeeded him after Lincoln’s assasination, was because of Johnson’s refusal to snide by the Tenure of Office Act. A subsequent Congressional attempt to restrict the President’s authority was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Congress cannot achieve the same result by trying to bring it under an obstruction of justice statute. Further, you cannot obstruct justice by publicly proclaiming your innocence. Not only is that protected by the first amendment, obstruction of justice requires a corrupt interference (“hey, I didn’t do it and I think the prosecutor is out to get me and the entire investigation is illegal” will not qualify, even if you are guilty. How much more inappropriate to base a corruption claim on that kind of statement if you are in fact innocent. Do we want, as a matter of policy, to base an obstruction charge on protestations of innocence? I think not. Yes, obstruction can occur even when someone is innocent but, as I said, it must be corrupt. Suborning perjury, bribing a witness, etc., may be obstruction, but nothing that is claimed as a basis for obstruction of justice by Trump fits the bill. George M. Zuganelis, Happily Retired and Recovering Attorney at Law - Nothing I Say Is Legal Advice (1978-present) Answered Jun 24, 2017 · Author has 1.8k answers and 307.2k answer views You cannot obstruct something that did not happen. Just as you cannot resist arrest if no crime were committed. The difficult part of this is educating the police that a crime is needed in order to charge someone with obstruction or resisting. In my 38 years as a criminal defense lawyer I have noticed that police will arrest a person for obstructing or resisting for merely not following the officer’s orders. It’s not wise to disobey police orders, but it’s not a crime. Peter Zaper, B.A. Law & University of Illinois at Chicago, John Marshall Law School (1978) Answered Mar 25, 2019 · Author has 900 answers and 74.8k answer views Of course not. If there is no crime there is nothing to charge. As far as the Trump investigation Mueller stated in his report that he found no evidence of obstruction of justice. He just wasn’t going to say that he “exonerated “ Trump of that crime. That is like a cop saying “my gut tells me that that guy is dirty.” Gut feelings are not evidence in a courtroom.Bruce Nahin, JD Law & Entertainment Law, Loyola Marymount University (1977) Answered Mar 26, 2019 · Author has 173 answers and 17.3k answer views Recently( wonder why) ive been asked many times today as to the elements of Obstruction of Justice..These are the elements There was a pending federal judicial proceeding; The defendant knew of the proceeding; and. The defendant had corrupt intent to interfere with or attempted to interfere with the proceeding. AG Barr adduced that if you know there was no crime you can't obstruct justice because you must analyze intent based on this knowledge. He concluded that if you knew there was no crime there would be no intent to interfere, in essence no corrupt intent.. From that he said you need to attribute actions taken as having motives other than to interfere, as innocent. or for motives other than to interfere. Simon Mouer, Pro Se litigant up to the federal appellate level. Answered Jun 17, 2017 · Author has 2.7k answers and 1.1m answer views Theoretically — Yes. The charge would pertain to impeding the investigation, for example, destroying evidence, lying to investigators, hiding or intimidating witnesses, etc.. By the way, lying to the FBI is in and of itself a crime., Practically — no. if there is no indictment, or no conviction, then an obstruction charge is unlikely, because jurors are not sympathetic to an obstruction charge unless there is ultimately a conviction.
|
|
|
Post by david on May 13, 2019 13:09:31 GMT -8
Replying to Macster. Thanks for the reply. I wasn't trying to argue with JD. It was apparent from his post that he has not read a word of the Mueller Report, so I was trying to encourage him to do so, or at least read a few pages. He does say he's an attorney. Anyone interested in the welfare and survival of our nation should at least begin to read it. It's just a simple statement of facts about 2016 Russian Interference and analysis of arguments regarding obstruction of justice by The Leader in ten different instances. Macster, Pages 159-182 of Volume 2 is titled "III. LEGAL DEFENSES To THE APPLICATION OF OBSTRUCTION-OF-JUSTICE STATUTES To THE PRESIDENT". Mueller and his associates anticipated the several Quora opinions you included. I wouldn't be surprised if those pages aren't ready for submittal to The Supreme Court. Check them out. Why would The Leader would want to declare Executive Privilege in regard to the Mueller Report? It "totally exonerates" him and he says it's "the Bible" on the subject. He is, "essentially" innocent, after all. The last paragraph in Volume 2 the report: "IV. CONCLUSION Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President 's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." Read the redacted Mueller report here: www.documentcloud.org/documents/5955379-Redacted-Mueller-Report.html#document/
|
|