Dave
Member
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,096
|
Post by Dave on Aug 14, 2020 2:19:38 GMT -8
|
|
Dave
Member
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,096
|
Post by Dave on Aug 14, 2020 2:30:41 GMT -8
|
|
Dave
Member
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,096
|
Post by Dave on Aug 14, 2020 2:39:47 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by playultimate on Aug 14, 2020 4:13:22 GMT -8
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,625
|
Post by 4aapl on Aug 14, 2020 5:14:31 GMT -8
Good morning all!
If you have an account, but haven't posted lately, go ahead and post your latest thoughts on AAPL and Apple.
If you have been visiting, but don't have an account yet, create one and join on in.
We have exciting times in this next couple months. Join in on the celebration and discussion.
|
|
chinacat
Moderator
AAPL Long since 2006
Posts: 4,426
|
Post by chinacat on Aug 14, 2020 5:19:46 GMT -8
We’ll see. So far, they haven’t stopped innovating, e.g. AirPods, and the patent announcements continue to come. Speaking of which, I am amazed at the vast majority of the remote interviewees on the political talk shows who wear them; it’s almost a shock when I see a pair of wires dangling from someone’s ears.
|
|
|
Post by aaplcrazie on Aug 14, 2020 5:22:32 GMT -8
Well... We keep hearing: There's Amazing Things in The Pipeline...Be nice if one or two of those saw the light of day and A Launch at some point...... Remember "Cant Inovate my Ass...."
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,625
|
Post by 4aapl on Aug 14, 2020 5:42:48 GMT -8
Down a little to start the morning. I haven't looked at current options, but anytime the stock closes near a strike on Thursday ($460.04), it seems more likely to stay flat for the day. But, maybe that's just the times you remember it. I was curious about when new option strikes are written. Like I've said before, 20% annualized plus a 10% kicker is a level I'm looking at. But from the current $460 level, that's around $720 in Sept '22. The 660's are available and in the $35-$40 range for a net total of around $700, which is close. Anyways, it turns out you can contact CBOE to request they open new strikes. Given there are 660's at a bunch of expirations, have 700's and beyond at the furthest out expiration would make sense. www.cboe.com/aboutcboe/new-strike-price-requestsJust doing a little pruning and shaping, while continuing to expect a good probability at a further boost near the split and near the iPhone announcement. But it's good to keep an eye on your Options!
|
|
chinacat
Moderator
AAPL Long since 2006
Posts: 4,426
|
Post by chinacat on Aug 14, 2020 5:42:58 GMT -8
|
|
bud777
fire starter
Posts: 1,352
|
Post by bud777 on Aug 14, 2020 7:04:30 GMT -8
I am not sure that I agree with the premise. IBM was always a service company. They sold systems, not hardware, in fact they were terrified of the idea that computers would become appliances and the ensuing chaos. I think their evolution was driven more by the availability of cheap IC's than by any natural progression. If it had not been for Apple, we would all be using our mouse to punch holes in virtual Hollerith cards ( ask your Dad what this means). I think bundling is a wonderful idea. I cannot keep track of all the services I subscribe to with Apple and don't want to. As to innovation, IBM's approach to software always seemed to me to be more about imposing order and stifling innovation, thus opening the door for UNIX. Remember the UNIX license plate that said "Live free or Die"? MIcrosoft? Innovation? Pleaseeeeee. The words should never be used in the same paragraph. I worked with Window 1.0. MIcrosoft was not even a good thief. They didn't understand execs or multi-tasking until they hired Cutler to write Windows NT. Innovation is not a new gadget once a year. Innovation in todays's environment has much more to do with emergent capabilities that come from the interaction of components. This challenge is more prominent with the advent of 5G. As we move to an object-oriented world, functionality becomes the result of messages sent to objects as opposed to algorithms operating on data. Today, the objects primarily reside in the same machine. We may see the day when objects are distributed throughout the web. I think this will happen faster and easier in Apples "walled garden"
|
|
|
Post by ericinaustin on Aug 14, 2020 8:10:55 GMT -8
I have mentioned a number of times about considering a get together in vegas or other places. Still think it would be fun and educational and apple has been good enough to many of us that perhaps we even could pony up enough money to get Hoarce Dediu to come out and give us a presentation , a long talk and question and answer session might be very valuable. After covid is over ( Feb? March?) perhaps we might think about it? I need to get away.
Eric in austin
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,182
|
Post by JDSoCal on Aug 14, 2020 10:17:30 GMT -8
As the late Dr Krauthammer used to say, "the correct answer is..." The Apple IBM metaphor is weak. All due respect to Bud, but IBMACHINES made its gazillions selling expensive large mainframe and minicomputers and later, servers that were located at the place of the customer. Yes there were service revenues that added margins to IBM hardware. But take away the hardware, and no need for those services. Eventually the cloud killed the need for its customer companies to buy their own computers, because cloud is at least a magnitude cheaper. And the cloud margins suck, which is why companies with business models not based on hardware sales that are being replaced by those services (Amazon, Microsoft, Google) prospered, as they could underwrite their cloud ventures. That is, cloud margins are better than zero, but much worse than mainframe margins. So IBM was chasing the cloud as its hardware business (and its related services revenue) died. Dinosaurs bellowing after the meteor already hit and mammals were running around (I know this is a terrible account of pre-history). Keep in mind I am a long time IBM shareholder who has lived through this evolution into... neanderthalensis. On the other hand, Apple's services depend on Apple's hardware to deliver them. Anyone with a room full of servers can offer web hosting or database services via the cloud. But only iPhones and iPads can deliver the walled garden of iOS. Yes, Apple has moved some of iOS to the cloud (storage, music and video, etc), but you still need a device to deliver it. And unlike IBM's case, Apple's cloud isn't replacing the hardware (although to some degree, it replaced local iPhone memory, but with a permanent revenue stream vs one time iPhone storage revenue. We all know which is better, even the social science majors. Any accountant would make that deal in a second).
Sure, iPhone could be replaced by something else (wearables, implantables, etc), but odds are Apple would be the one cannibalizing its own products. Which Steve told us was OK, so long as Apple is the one doing the cannibalism. Can anyone see a cloud-based system vitiating the need for an Apple-specific device? Well, Google has tried to copy the iOS experience with such a commodity model with Android. Cheap-ass Android phones abound, made by 1000's of handset makers, all running a free, generic OS and all can use millions of the same generic apps. How's that business model working out? Yes Android has a larger share of phones, but a mere sliver of the profits (and with a 180 degrees different privacy model).
CNBC's Jon Fortt said today that Fornite makes like 94% of its mobile profits on iOS, but only 4% of its profits via Android. Google pays billions to be on Safari search, because that's where all the money is. Are any of the cloud companies paying billions to IBM, desperate to be on their platform?
Speaking of Fortnite, I think it was dumb strategy for Epic to mess with the Google Play Store as well, as it really counters their Apple monopoly argument. They should have used Play Store as an alternative example to be distinguished from the App Store, IMO. I respect the chutzpah, but that doesn't make it a winning play. Let's hope Tim responds in-kind.
|
|
|
Post by duckpins on Aug 14, 2020 11:22:02 GMT -8
Maybe consider this. Borrowing money from Wall Street makes money for Wall Street. Keeping those crooks happy leads to a higher stock price and better press for Apple.
|
|
|
Post by duckpins on Aug 14, 2020 11:25:46 GMT -8
If Cloud storage is the cheapest thing going why is Apple adding it only to its most expensive level of service. Seems like the TV and music would be more costly?
|
|
bud777
fire starter
Posts: 1,352
|
Post by bud777 on Aug 14, 2020 11:25:55 GMT -8
My point, which I failed to make clearly, was that IBM sold solutions. That involved selecting the appropriate hardware and software as well as configuring the software to the customers needs as they saw them. I considered this to be a service that involved hardware. I think we are in agreement that the Hardware -> no innovation ->service paradigm does not fit Apple.
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,625
|
Post by 4aapl on Aug 14, 2020 11:54:19 GMT -8
FWIW, lots of volume today on those 460 calls that expire in 8 minutes. 153k, while only 15k open interest. Bring out the day traders! And AAPL is climbing. Those were at 4-5 cents a couple minutes ago, so even a close at $460.10 would be a 100% gain. (FWIW, I'm guessing at a close a few cents below 460) Not for me, but it's fun to watch at times. (Yep, close below $460, making them all worthless. finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL200814C00460000 FWIW, the day-trading payoff would have been on the 455's or 450's, where a near perfect intraday trade would have given a 200% or 100% profit, respectfully. Not a think I aim for these days, but still interesting. That whole entertainment thing, I guess)
|
|
|
Post by hyci004 on Aug 14, 2020 12:22:44 GMT -8
My point, which I failed to make clearly, was that IBM sold solutions. That involved selecting the appropriate hardware and software as well as configuring the software to the customers needs as they saw them. I considered this to be a service that involved hardware. I think we are in agreement that the Hardware -> no innovation ->service paradigm does not fit Apple. Also, IBM failed to see the disruption of low cost personal computers to their solutions.
|
|
chinacat
Moderator
AAPL Long since 2006
Posts: 4,426
|
Post by chinacat on Aug 14, 2020 13:36:07 GMT -8
FWIW, lots of volume today on those 460 calls that expire in 8 minutes. 153k, while only 15k open interest. Bring out the day traders! And AAPL is climbing. Those were at 4-5 cents a couple minutes ago, so even a close at $460.10 would be a 100% gain. (FWIW, I'm guessing at a close a few cents below 460) Not for me, but it's fun to watch at times. Good guess! Thanks for the reminder of why I am glad that I am an investor and not a trader. Hats off to those who have the constitution to play that game.
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,182
|
Post by JDSoCal on Aug 14, 2020 13:48:29 GMT -8
I actually BOT some AAPL calls today and held them for an hour or two. First time I've bought options outside of some spread in like 10 years. 445 8/21's. Made $1.20 in the Roth. Scary.
I have some Oct spreads.
|
|
chinacat
Moderator
AAPL Long since 2006
Posts: 4,426
|
Post by chinacat on Aug 14, 2020 17:39:28 GMT -8
|
|
mark
fire starter
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by mark on Aug 17, 2020 13:29:19 GMT -8
FWIW, lots of volume today on those 460 calls that expire in 8 minutes. 153k, while only 15k open interest. Bring out the day traders! And AAPL is climbing. Those were at 4-5 cents a couple minutes ago, so even a close at $460.10 would be a 100% gain. (FWIW, I'm guessing at a close a few cents below 460) Not for me, but it's fun to watch at times. (Yep, close below $460, making them all worthless. finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL200814C00460000 FWIW, the day-trading payoff would have been on the 455's or 450's, where a near perfect intraday trade would have given a 200% or 100% profit, respectfully. Not a think I aim for these days, but still interesting. That whole entertainment thing, I guess) Yep. But it is important to remember that options truly are a zero-sum game. For every one of those options purchased at $0.05 today, someone SOLD them at $0.05. And each one of those sellers (that still had open positions at the end of trading) made $0.05 when they expired worthless.
|
|
|
Post by hyci004 on Aug 17, 2020 17:20:21 GMT -8
MacBook Air and 13” MBP are selling well for back to school. Ship time is now 2+ weeks.
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,625
|
Post by 4aapl on Aug 17, 2020 20:31:45 GMT -8
FWIW, lots of volume today on those 460 calls that expire in 8 minutes. 153k, while only 15k open interest. Bring out the day traders! And AAPL is climbing. Those were at 4-5 cents a couple minutes ago, so even a close at $460.10 would be a 100% gain. (FWIW, I'm guessing at a close a few cents below 460) Not for me, but it's fun to watch at times. (Yep, close below $460, making them all worthless. finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL200814C00460000 FWIW, the day-trading payoff would have been on the 455's or 450's, where a near perfect intraday trade would have given a 200% or 100% profit, respectfully. Not a think I aim for these days, but still interesting. That whole entertainment thing, I guess) Yep. But it is important to remember that options truly are a zero-sum game. For every one of those options purchased at $0.05 today, someone SOLD them at $0.05. And each one of those sellers (that still had open positions at the end of trading) made $0.05 when they expired worthless. Yep. But, most of the time it's the individual traders buying them, and institutional investors writing them. It's not 100%, or always that clear cut. The house doesn't always win in this case, but they do pretty well. Sometimes I do try to sit back and look at the other side of the trade, and see how it makes sense. In this case, the option had a high of the day at 3.05, and then expired worthless, on a 460 strike. If someone bought the underlying and wrote a call against it, they'd only make .66% that day. But, do it weekly or a few times a week, and it works out. Do it on a stock you want to own at that price, and you get rid of the risk. Or, do a more complex strategy. Someone is finding a way to have it make sense, though that may or may not align with something I agree with. And yet, like you pointed out, there is both a buyer, and a seller.
|
|
mark
fire starter
Posts: 1,552
|
Post by mark on Aug 18, 2020 7:09:16 GMT -8
Yep. But it is important to remember that options truly are a zero-sum game. For every one of those options purchased at $0.05 today, someone SOLD them at $0.05. And each one of those sellers (that still had open positions at the end of trading) made $0.05 when they expired worthless. Yep. But, most of the time it's the individual traders buying them, and institutional investors writing them. It's not 100%, or always that clear cut. The house doesn't always win in this case, but they do pretty well. Sometimes I do try to sit back and look at the other side of the trade, and see how it makes sense. In this case, the option had a high of the day at 3.05, and then expired worthless, on a 460 strike. If someone bought the underlying and wrote a call against it, they'd only make .66% that day. But, do it weekly or a few times a week, and it works out. Do it on a stock you want to own at that price, and you get rid of the risk. Or, do a more complex strategy. Someone is finding a way to have it make sense, though that may or may not align with something I agree with. And yet, like you pointed out, there is both a buyer, and a seller. I agree that someone who can "weekly" buy an underlying stock and sell a nearby call on it when it is trading at or near the weekly high will do quite well. Of course, if they are that good at identifying weekly highs, there are trades that can do MUCH better than this type of trade. That said, I have been told that there is a whole subcategory of options strategies used by institutional investors that involve repeatedly selling options very close to expiration in the hope of garnering a few cents of gain as they expire worthless. There have been conflicting studies about this and it appears that the "bias" is indeed towards expiring worthless, hence they mostly write options rather than buy them (for that particular strategy). The jury is still out on whether it is a worthwhile strategy when compared to deploying the capital differently at that time.
|
|