chinacat
Moderator
AAPL Long since 2006
Posts: 4,426
|
Post by chinacat on Nov 4, 2019 6:52:26 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on Nov 4, 2019 6:59:34 GMT -8
AAPL ALL TIME HIGH! $257.85 All Time Highest TODAY intraday
|
|
chinacat
Moderator
AAPL Long since 2006
Posts: 4,426
|
Post by chinacat on Nov 4, 2019 9:08:07 GMT -8
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,622
|
Post by 4aapl on Nov 4, 2019 9:12:57 GMT -8
Trolling the options charts, while considering selling some covered calls, it's interesting to see a few little gems tossed in there.
Take Jan '20, with a little over 600 call contracts changing hands at both 150 and 155. At first I thought it was a bearish bet, since there's virtually no time premium there to use. But looking at the "last price", you can see there is a 4 cent premium. That brings it to $4 per contract, and $2400 for the block. For a total cost of around $300k. I added a zero in my first calculation and thought that was an 8% yield instead of .8%. But annualize it, calling it 2.5 months, or 1/5 of a year, and you get a not too bad 4% yield for virtually no risk.
With trading costs at or close to zero, it starts to make sense if you have cash lying around, or don't mind borrowing at a low rate. Personally I'd look for something slightly more profitable, but there are people out there looking for these arbitrage deals.
Personally, I'm looking at 14 and 26 months out, but even the near term December and January calls, from the covered standpoint of opening it instead of immediately selling the underlying shares, looks tempting. You could easily take in an extra $6 or $8, plus a few bucks of the strike premium. There's a lot of positives to this timeframe, for the market and for Apple. OTOH, there's always the risk of holding out for more, if you really want to sell those underlying shares in the shorter term.
Nice to see AAPL up, even if it's not the big surge of Friday.
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,622
|
Post by 4aapl on Nov 4, 2019 9:35:46 GMT -8
It's interesting to see what the competition tries to sell, and what it sees as important. In this case, it's the MasterCard Black LuxuryCard. I saw the add on Yahoo Finance, where all it said (though possibly after any animations), was that the card was metal, and used a PVD process to make it black. Yes, that was the selling point. Personally, I didn't get an Apple Card because it was metal, or of how the coloring was applied. I've had a couple other metal cards, and didn't even know they were going to be metal. Unlike a weighted blanket that possibly might have some positive attributes, I don't personally see an advantage of a metal card...unless I'm desperate for an ice scraper or a lock pick tool. I think they are too ridgid to make an older iMac opening tool. OTOH, the percentage back is decent, and it likely has some good things going for it. But, there's a $500 annual fee, plus another $200 per additional user. Kinda cancels out most other positives, but I must not be the target audience. www.luxurycard.com/blackcard?campaign=PROSP&campaignMedium=Banners&campaignSource=YahooProg&campaignContent=BR_PROSP_PredExchangeBB_978298_1813634&placement=yahoo.com__finance.yahoo.comFWIW, I just got a notice from American Express of all of the perks they were cutting. The card was already on my "time to close" list, and that just solidified it.
|
|
bud777
fire starter
Posts: 1,352
|
Post by bud777 on Nov 4, 2019 9:53:48 GMT -8
I agree about the AMEX card. IT has been our goto card for big purchases since 1972. I really hate to close it, their servie has been great over the years, after those cuts, it is hard to see a benefit that justifies the annual fee.
EDIT: I just reviewed their befits for the Gold Card. ACtually, I think I'll keep it. Declining rent-a car insurance probably offsets the cost
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,622
|
Post by 4aapl on Nov 4, 2019 11:36:41 GMT -8
I agree about the AMEX card. IT has been our goto card for big purchases since 1972. I really hate to close it, their servie has been great over the years, after those cuts, it is hard to see a benefit that justifies the annual fee. EDIT: I just reviewed their befits for the Gold Card. ACtually, I think I'll keep it. Declining rent-a car insurance probably offsets the cost FWIW, other cards offer that too. I know the Amazon Prime card I just opened does, and I believe the Costco one does too. Just make sure you have the card in the name of the driver. In Slovania, a friend rented a van one day, and we rented a car the next. This was at Avis or something like that, a well known one, and for him they let them use his wife's card even though we was going to be the driver. The next day, they didn't let us use my card since my wife was going to drive. Due to being overseas, we wanted different cards with us, as a backup. Anyways, lots of things out there. I'm going to have to read through the Apple Card perks again. I've started writing key things and differences, like gas and restaurant benefits, on the cards with a Sharpie.
|
|
|
Post by dreamRaj on Nov 4, 2019 12:13:20 GMT -8
Although the market is doing better, AAPL is managing to hold up well. As I write this, it's at 257.50, near today's ATH of 257.79. At least there's no selling for profit-taking. I would like to believe that means we'll continue holding up and steadily move higher.
With TV+, Apple is taking the slow and steady wins the race approach. The very small selection of just nine shows seems feeble to anybody comparing it to Netflix and, not to forget, the mammoth collection that Disney+ is dropping on the world next week. Apart from continuing to make great new content with the best talent in the business, I hope Apple does some binge-buying of smaller studios that have original content waiting to be produced or bought. Had TV+ launched with 40 shows, I think there would be a solid buzz about it right now. That would probably get us many super-upgrades with price targets of 320+. My 2¢.
|
|
|
Post by duckpins on Nov 4, 2019 12:37:44 GMT -8
Based on experience no card is better for a cheated consumer than American Express. I have reason to complain to CC companies only a handful of times over the years. Every time AE takes my side, every time Visa and MC take the seller's side. It took me 6 months to resolve one case I had with MC that was open and shut. They kept demanding copies of all the documents over and over. My file must have been an inch think...
I had a Sony camera stolen I had just purchased with a Visa. They promised 6 months of lost or stolen protection no questions asked. They denied the claim because the item was more than 6 feet from me ( i could not be positive it was not) and I did not see the person who stole it and could not identify them. If I said well it was lost I had to know when and wear I lost it and actually have seen it there. It literally made no sense.
There is a reason to keep AE for large purchases. Wait until you have a problem before you make judgements.
|
|
|
Post by nwjade on Nov 4, 2019 12:47:52 GMT -8
Although the market is doing better, AAPL is managing to hold up well. As I write this, it's at 257.50, near today's ATH of 257.79. At least there's no selling for profit-taking. I would like to believe that means we'll continue holding up and steadily move higher. With TV+, Apple is taking the slow and steady wins the race approach. The very small selection of just nine shows seems feeble to anybody comparing it to Netflix and, not to forget, the mammoth collection that Disney+ is dropping on the world next week. Apart from continuing to make great new content with the best talent in the business, I hope Apple does some binge-buying of smaller studios that have original content waiting to be produced or bought. Had TV+ launched with 40 shows, I think there would be a solid buzz about it right now. That would probably get us many super-upgrades with price targets of 320+. My 2¢. IMO after this ~9% move to the upside over the last couple of weeks and sporting a 77 RSI the best thing would be a period of consolidation. If that happens and then a phase one trade deal gets signed we'd be sitting pretty for another leg higher.
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on Nov 4, 2019 13:03:33 GMT -8
AAPL ALL TIME HIGH!$257.85All Time Highest TODAY intraday 23,568,079
shares traded today AAPL ALL TIME HIGHEST CLOSE!$257.50aaplinvestors.net/stats/rank/AAPL market CAP. +1.144 TRILLION AAPL ALL TIME HIGH market CAP. +1.144 TRILLION TODAY +$1.144 TRILLION
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,182
|
Post by JDSoCal on Nov 4, 2019 14:20:23 GMT -8
So let me get this straight. All these progressives who work at Apple - who are paid ungodly amounts of money 💰 and stock, and who were personally involved in running up housing prices in Silicon Valley - are all feeling warm and fuzzy right now because they spent *shareholder wealth* for this housing fund? Other people’s money, indeed.
Oh well, I guess it will help stave off the shakedown by the rent seekers up in nutty NorCal. “Nice company you have there; it would be shame if something happened to it.”
|
|
mark
fire starter
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by mark on Nov 4, 2019 15:05:36 GMT -8
Trolling the options charts, while considering selling some covered calls, it's interesting to see a few little gems tossed in there. Take Jan '20, with a little over 600 call contracts changing hands at both 150 and 155. At first I thought it was a bearish bet, since there's virtually no time premium there to use. But looking at the "last price", you can see there is a 4 cent premium. That brings it to $4 per contract, and $2400 for the block. For a total cost of around $300k. I added a zero in my first calculation and thought that was an 8% yield instead of .8%. But annualize it, calling it 2.5 months, or 1/5 of a year, and you get a not too bad 4% yield for virtually no risk. I'm not sure I understand the trade you are proposing here. If you buy (or sell) a contract of the Jan '20 150's at $107.42, it'll cost you $10,742 plus commission (not quite zero, it's still a few bucks plus the regulatory fee). And at 4 cents spread, you'll be guaranteed to make $4 per contract. But if you really want a no risk place to put $10k for two months, why not just buy an 8-week treasury bill yielding 1.7% or so? On $10k, you'll get 1.7% x (2/12) x $10k, or about $28. Am I missing something here?
|
|
|
Post by BillH on Nov 4, 2019 15:24:30 GMT -8
So let me get this straight. All these progressives who work at Apple - who are paid ungodly amounts of money 💰 and stock, and who were personally involved in running up housing prices in Silicon Valley - are all feeling warm and fuzzy right now because they spent *shareholder wealth* for this housing fund? Other people’s money, indeed. Oh well, I guess it will help stave off the shakedown by the rent seekers up in nutty NorCal. “Nice company you have there; it would be shame if something happened to it.” Though I'm not historically a fan of business doing anything other than what they were built for I have a couple of thoughts re: this. Firstly, is this money merely spent or is it in fact invested. Tim's been investing in the supply chain almost since day one and it wouldn't be difficult to argue that this is more of the same. Secondly and more importantly, I chafe at the idea of the USA turning into yet another country where the rich live behind their gated walls and the poor live a fairly squalid existence. It would be nice if this problem could be solved by a heavy helping of Ayn Rands economics of self determination and individualism but there doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence that it actually would work. Given your dislike of government and its OPM taxation policies and Corporate use of OPM I guess I'd ask what you have in mind for a solution to what seems to be a rich/poor split that seems to be gathering momentum?
|
|
|
Post by hledgard on Nov 4, 2019 19:45:25 GMT -8
Not that happy about the 2B. Why not give it as a bonus to shareholders?
BillH's post is a thoughtful response.
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,182
|
Post by JDSoCal on Nov 4, 2019 20:10:29 GMT -8
So let me get this straight. All these progressives who work at Apple - who are paid ungodly amounts of money 💰 and stock, and who were personally involved in running up housing prices in Silicon Valley - are all feeling warm and fuzzy right now because they spent *shareholder wealth* for this housing fund? Other people’s money, indeed. Oh well, I guess it will help stave off the shakedown by the rent seekers up in nutty NorCal. “Nice company you have there; it would be shame if something happened to it.” Though I'm not historically a fan of business doing anything other than what they were built for I have a couple of thoughts re: this. Firstly, is this money merely spent or is it in fact invested. Tim's been investing in the supply chain almost since day one and it wouldn't be difficult to argue that this is more of the same. Secondly and more importantly, I chafe at the idea of the USA turning into yet another country where the rich live behind their gated walls and the poor live a fairly squalid existence. It would be nice if this problem could be solved by a heavy helping of Ayn Rands economics of self determination and individualism but there doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence that it actually would work. Given your dislike of government and its OPM taxation policies and Corporate use of OPM I guess I'd ask what you have in mind for a solution to what seems to be a rich/poor split that seems to be gathering momentum? Oh, I don’t know, perhaps people could move from Silicon Valley if they cannot afford to live in the most expensive housing market on earth? There are plenty of cheaper places to live where wages will go a lot farther. This idea that people have a constitutional right to live on the West Coast is ridiculous. But my larger point isn’t so much that Apple’s progressive execs shouldn’t try to make it cheaper for their gardeners and housekeepers and nannies to live closer to them; it’s just that I/we didn’t cause this housing cost spike, Tim and Apple executives and all the other super rich Big Tech execs did. So why is my wealth being used? I just HATE this idea that spending other people’s money makes the spender a good person. Robin Hood was not an altruist. He was a thief.
|
|
chinacat
Moderator
AAPL Long since 2006
Posts: 4,426
|
Post by chinacat on Nov 4, 2019 20:58:29 GMT -8
Robin Hood was not an altruist. He was a thief. Oh, JD, you are just SUCH a romantic! You do remember that he was fictional, right? Opiate for the masses, and all that...
|
|
|
Post by BillH on Nov 4, 2019 21:39:15 GMT -8
Oh, I don’t know, perhaps people could move from Silicon Valley if they cannot afford to live in the most expensive housing market on earth? There are plenty of cheaper places to live where wages will go a lot farther. This idea that people have a constitutional right to live on the West Coast is ridiculous. But my larger point isn’t so much that Apple’s progressive execs shouldn’t try to make it cheaper for their gardeners and housekeepers and nannies to live closer to them; it’s just that I/we didn’t cause this housing cost spike, Tim and Apple executives and all the other super rich Big Tech execs did. So why is my wealth being used? I just HATE this idea that spending other people’s money makes the spender a good person. Robin Hood was not an altruist. He was a thief. Coincidentally my daughter (Intuit product mgr.) and her now husband (Google research scientist) did just that. They have a nice rather large home about a half block from the creek she use to travel down as a kid and is raising one of her own. Silicon Valley's loss is Minneapolis's gain but it doesn't really solve the problem. I think you jumped the shark here. "I just HATE this idea that spending other people’s money makes the spender a good person." That's not really what's being discussed nor do I think you'd find any real disagreement with the statement. It's a problem that needs solving and I sure hate the idea of abandoning the spaceship that so much care and effort was put into building. I also think that there's a great deal of value in the creative energy and ideas created by the culture out there. I'll admit that I don't have any better ideas.
|
|
Dave
Member
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,090
|
Post by Dave on Nov 5, 2019 4:13:03 GMT -8
I doubt that few would complain about Tim Cook’s contribution to the states problem had he used his own money and not the share holders money. But maybe this is just a way of funneling money into pockets of the state’s political party.
Just a thought.
|
|
chinacat
Moderator
AAPL Long since 2006
Posts: 4,426
|
Post by chinacat on Nov 5, 2019 4:37:32 GMT -8
I doubt that few would complain about Tim Cook’s contribution to the states problem had he used his own money and not the share holders money. But maybe this is just a way of funneling money into pockets of the state’s political party. Just a thought. So you don’t think that Tim’s consideration was what is best for for Apple in the long run, and therefore for shareholders like us? Like all good CEOs, he understands that sometimes you need to spend money to make money, including protecting your most valuable asset, quality people.
|
|
Dave
Member
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,090
|
Post by Dave on Nov 5, 2019 5:48:13 GMT -8
I doubt that few would complain about Tim Cook’s contribution to the states problem had he used his own money and not the share holders money. But maybe this is just a way of funneling money into pockets of the state’s political party. Just a thought. So you don’t think that Tim’s consideration was what is best for for Apple in the long run, and therefore for shareholders like us? Like all good CEOs, he understands that sometimes you need to spend money to make money, including protecting your most valuable asset, quality people. Do you really believe $2.5 billion will make any difference to the problem that California is having with the declining middle class in the state? As I said, if he wants throw his money at the problem then he should, but not that of the share holders. Apple Inc. does not belong to Tim Cook. Do you disagree?
|
|
chinacat
Moderator
AAPL Long since 2006
Posts: 4,426
|
Post by chinacat on Nov 5, 2019 5:57:35 GMT -8
So you don’t think that Tim’s consideration was what is best for for Apple in the long run, and therefore for shareholders like us? Like all good CEOs, he understands that sometimes you need to spend money to make money, including protecting your most valuable asset, quality people. Do you really believe $2.5 billion will make any difference to the problem that California is having with the declining middle class in the state? As I said, if he wants throw his money at the problem then he should, but not that of the share holders. Apple Inc. does not belong to Tim Cook. Do you disagree? You don’t think that employee retention should be a corporate expense!?! Give me one example where a CEO of a company, public or private, spent his own money on that expense, other than wholly-owned enterprises. This was about affordable housing within reach of the corporation, AFIK.
|
|
benoir
fire starter
*
Posts: 1,318
|
Post by benoir on Nov 5, 2019 6:37:37 GMT -8
Do you really believe $2.5 billion will make any difference to the problem that California is having with the declining middle class in the state? As I said, if he wants throw his money at the problem then he should, but not that of the share holders. Apple Inc. does not belong to Tim Cook. Do you disagree? You don’t think that employee retention should be a corporate expense!?! Give me one example where a CEO of a company, public or private, spent his own money on that expense, other than wholly-owned enterprises. This was about affordable housing within reach of the corporation, AFIK. What Apple is doing is not particularly unusual and this is probably not a decision that Tim Cook alone came up with. BHP, for example, strategically provides housing in mining towns, complete with streets scraping to improve the amenity outcomes for the those towns. The idea being that if they make these remote mining towns more livable then that may attract miners and their families to relocate rather than fly-in, fly-out. This also improves the economic viability of those towns. The whole idea is that the mining company in interested in retaining their skilled workers for the long haul. So for BHP it is an investment in itself, for its long term benefit and therefore the long term benefit of its shareholders. Thus far, pretty happy with Tim Cook as CEO.
|
|
Dave
Member
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,090
|
Post by Dave on Nov 5, 2019 7:31:06 GMT -8
You don’t think that employee retention should be a corporate expense!?! Give me one example where a CEO of a company, public or private, spent his own money on that expense, other than wholly-owned enterprises. This was about affordable housing within reach of the corporation, AFIK. What Apple is doing is not particularly unusual and this is probably not a decision that Tim Cook alone came up with. BHP, for example, strategically provides housing in mining towns, complete with streets scraping to improve the amenity outcomes for the those towns. The idea being that if they make these remote mining towns more livable then that may attract miners and their families to relocate rather than fly-in, fly-out. This also improves the economic viability of those towns. The whole idea is that the mining company in interested in retaining their skilled workers for the long haul. So for BHP it is an investment in itself, for its long term benefit and therefore the long term benefit of its shareholders. Thus far, pretty happy with Tim Cook as CEO. Yes, there was a time in this country in the 1800’s when companies would build the infrastructure needed to support their factories including the schools for training the workforce. But Cupertino is not a remote third world country and Apple is not needing to beg for employee’s. The problem is California. It has the third largest economy in the world and it is rapidly heading towards bankruptcy. Do a search on line about why there is a mass exodus from California. Throwing corporate money at the problem will only enable the problem to expand. I also am happy with Tim Cook, except for his placing Apple’s manufacturing in communist China and his willingness to drag the company into his activism, polarizing the customer base. Tim Cook is now the face of Apple.
|
|
|
Post by hledgard on Nov 5, 2019 8:31:38 GMT -8
Excellent discussion above ! !
2-sided, open discussion of the 2B donation. Just great points, all of you !
And non-judgmental of individual people's views.
This is the best of what this board stands for.
|
|
platon
Member
"All we can know is that we know nothing. And that's the height of human wisdom.? Tolstoy
Posts: 3,944
|
Post by platon on Nov 5, 2019 8:42:59 GMT -8
Excellent discussion above ! ! 2-sided, open discussion of the 2B donation. Just great points, all of you ! And non-judgmental of individual people's views. This is the best of what this board stands for. I agree hledgard. I believe that there is no doubt that the judgmental opinions of each of the poster's exists but it is not expressed which makes for a good conversation. This type of discussion on an anonymous forum is difficult to say the least, for all involved. Congratulations to the participants they all made good points pro and con and there was something there for both sides of the debate.
|
|
chinacat
Moderator
AAPL Long since 2006
Posts: 4,426
|
Post by chinacat on Nov 5, 2019 8:50:35 GMT -8
I also am happy with Tim Cook, except for his placing Apple’s manufacturing in communist China and his willingness to drag the company into his activism, polarizing the customer base. Tim Cook is now the face of Apple. And Steve Jobs was the face of Apple before him; this is a surprise? Are you denying that the move of manufacturing to China has been a key factor in Apple's financial success? He is currently exploring other options, such as India. I don't believe that there is significant evidence of "polarizing the customer base." Have you divested in protest, since you seem to have such strong convictions? Yeah, I thought not.
|
|
Dave
Member
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,090
|
Post by Dave on Nov 5, 2019 9:55:20 GMT -8
I also am happy with Tim Cook, except for his placing Apple’s manufacturing in communist China and his willingness to drag the company into his activism, polarizing the customer base. Tim Cook is now the face of Apple. And Steve Jobs was the face of Apple before him; this is a surprise? Are you denying that the move of manufacturing to China has been a key factor in Apple's financial success? He is currently exploring other options, such as India. I don't believe that there is significant evidence of "polarizing the customer base." Have you divested in protest, since you seem to have such strong convictions? Yeah, I thought not. From what I have read, Steve Jobs knew the dangers of becoming a political figurehead. There were those that wanted him to throw his hat into the governor’s race and he declined. Many times the news media tried to convince him to endorse some agenda and he wisely refused. Apple was his baby and he treated it as such. And as for China remember who was in charge of the supply chain at the time. Do you believe that Steve would not be concerned with China’s track record of intellectual property theft. Think Microsoft, Windows and Bill Gates. I’m confident that Tim Cook could call Foxcon up at anytime and say move Apples manufacturing to someplace in the world other than China and it would happen and be profitable. I see manufacturing in India as a way of satisfying the Indian market and maybe as a way to leverage China. And yes there are signs of polarization, simply look at the conversation we are having. We are being forced to take sides over a company we both admire and support. Question. Would you be as supportive of Tim Cook if tomorrow he announced that Apple was contributing a billion dollars to The Right To Life organization? Would you continue to hold shares? And I am totally out of AAPL for now. Just waiting for a correction.
|
|
mark
fire starter
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by mark on Nov 5, 2019 10:57:38 GMT -8
Question. Would you be as supportive of Tim Cook if tomorrow he announced that Apple was contributing a billion dollars to The Right To Life organization? Is all this money a contribution, or is most of it providing a kind of line of credit that will perhaps eventually be repaid (maybe even with some interest)?
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,182
|
Post by JDSoCal on Nov 5, 2019 11:07:56 GMT -8
I understand Tim didn’t do this entirely out of the bottom of his social justicey heart. This is a payoff and PR move, and it must be considered in that light. But what scares me is that appeasement rarely works. And most people sadly don’t know who really owns a corporation’s wealth (e.g., the retired middle school teacher in Pasadena or Peoria). They think it’s like 4 fat cat white guys twirling their mustaches. “Apple is so rich it should give that money away!” This Wired article about the spaceship campus has that tone: www.wired.com/story/apple-campus/“Apple has $250B and should rebuild the local roads and the mass transit!” Not even acknowledging that Apple pays a metric assload of *taxes* for such things. Apple’s huge cash reserves have always scared me, because there’s always a crowd out there that, for some inexplicable reason, thinks other people’s money is their’s for the taking. 💸 Honestly, seeing how Apple consistently puts the owners of the company at the bottom of the list when spending “its” cash hoard, I’d like to see a general revamping of corporate rules to more clearly and unequivocally prioritize shareholders as the #1 use for surplus cash. Especially since we’ve recently seen the rate of dividend growth *decrease*. But they have billions to give away for housing? Obviously, R&D and acquisitions and financial engineering are legitimate uses as well. Corporations should have to regularly declare the main purpose of their existence so investors can pick and choose on this basis. The chief purpose of a corporation should be to enrich its shareholders, period. It’s sad that this is even controversial. Unfortunately, most Americans really believe stock ownership is for rich people (they have it backwards of course; it’s to make people rich). We should be teaching investing at the high school level. College Business majors can go all the way to the MBA level and never be taught how to open a brokerage account (there are investing courses at the undergraduate level, but they are typically electives). Everyone should know how to open an IRA or 401K before they enter the workforce! We should be teaching the gospel of wealth instead of envy in our schools. Instead of vilifying corporate America, we should be proud and supportive of it (just about every high school teacher in America has their pension depending on it!). At least our companies that don’t sell people’s data. 😂 Other countries defend and promote their companies. We attack our companies as “greedy” in a circular firing squad, as the Chinese and the rest of the world laugh at our folly. The trade “war” should be viewed in this light, however disruptive it might be in the short term. 🍻 to the longs.
|
|