Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2013 21:41:25 GMT -8
Sorry, question should have been how many 28nm chips did TSMC produce in 2012? Really looking for some feedback om this.
|
|
mark
fire starter
Posts: 1,545
|
Post by mark on Jan 19, 2013 21:50:34 GMT -8
The one CNBC video you should watch this year. Reposted because it's just that good. You can just mute/close your eyes when the CNBC talking heads pop up. That was awesome. Amazing how they keep baiting him, but he's smart and has the right answer each time.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jan 19, 2013 22:42:51 GMT -8
Sorry, question should have been how many 28nm chips did TSMC produce in 2012? Really looking for some feedback om this. Gregg, maybe you can reach out to pats over at Braeburn on this one. From what little I think I know about the subject, I'm surprised that TSMC is implying that the other major players - which are Samsung and Qualcomm, since TI is apparently leaving the game - are sticking to "older" 32nm processes. I doubt TSMC would crow about 100% market share of an "inferior" process. Not sure you could extrapolate Apple's share even if you somehow could get the data. Apple's not dumb enough to let _this_ kind of data loose, and TSMC is certainly not dumb enough to let the order info leak. Also, A6/A6X/A7/A7X will certainly have different cost curves and ASPs to mess up the math.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jan 19, 2013 22:44:35 GMT -8
Hope your health situation's improving, Nevyn.
Non-advice advice, I wouldn't trade the VIX, it really is a weird derivative. Requires really big moves for you to make any real money.
|
|
|
Post by jeffi on Jan 19, 2013 22:58:46 GMT -8
semantics plural of se·man·tics (Noun) Noun The branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. The meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text: "such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff". Manipulation as the cause (as compared to unwinding of open options) for the pinning action in Apple's stock price is not semantics. The meaning is different. It is not semantics. Yeah, I'll pass on debating the semantics of the definition of semantics. ;D "Manipulation" is often used (correctly or incorrectly) to mean the pinning that results from the unwinding of open options. "Manipulation" is often mistaken for "collusion." There is no collusion; therefore there is nothing for the SEC to prosecute. Personifying market forces (e.g., Mr. Market, Evil Overlord) falls under the realm of behavioral finance. I must apologize. There is a dual meaning for manipulation (not only a negative connotation). Therefore, I am wrong about the semantics. I hope you accept my sincere apology. Upon reflection, your follow through regarding collusion and the SEC also appears spot on. Lastly, behavioral finance seems an appropriate classification regarding personifying market forces. I see your light. I would like to further my (and the boards) understanding of the impact from the unwinding of options. Some observations as I see it... 1. Open options that are assigned (in the money and not closed out) are a neutral market force on the day the option expires. Out of the money options that remain open at expiration also have no impact on the stock price. As a side note... The impact on the stock price occurred when the option contracts were opened. In other words, buying a long call places upwards pressure while buying a put places downward pressure because market makers hedge. 2. Closing an open contract moves the underlying stock in the opposite direction. How many will be closed out on option expiration day? 3. One must compare the quantity of open puts to calls that may be closed out. The closing contracts (puts vs calls) push or pull the price in opposite directions. 4. One must compare the derivative quantity of shares that the open contracts represent (that might be closed out) against the volume of common shares that are likely to trade. Which current is stronger and in which direction? Numerous interrelated factors cause a stock to pin. A better understanding of the dynamics will enable us to better predict the closing price on expiration day. Please add to and correct my discussion points. I presume I am missing part of the picture. Jeffi
|
|
mark
fire starter
Posts: 1,545
|
Post by mark on Jan 19, 2013 23:37:23 GMT -8
Lovey, did you grant Rosie membership? ;D Chas, I appreciate the links. What I find strange is that this has been common knowledge for a long time. It is not like I let the cat out of the bag. People need to understand trade velocity. I read an extensive research report last year that made my skin crawl. It was last year I also started investigating quote stuffing. There was a guy over at Cobra's site who actually had a program that tracked HFT quotes. EO's control direction, plain and simple. Supply and demand, HA. If it were that simple. I will say I have learned new info about the past few months. Someone I know opened my eyes to something that happened to him about option assignment after the dividend. I am starting to understand what the market actually did to ITM option holders at the end of the year. Not only did they steal the dividends, they created tax events for unsuspecting assignees. Crooks. Something similar may have happened to me with option assignments. Can you elaborate further the details of what transpired? Sounds to me like someone made a contract in which he gave the buyer of that contract the right to buy the stock from him at a specified price. More commonly known as "selling to open" an option. And it further sounds like the buyer of that contract exercised the option at an inopportune time (pre-dividend and before the end of the year which caused an unexpected capital gain to be realized). Yes, of course! Don't sell such contracts. ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2013 3:41:51 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by mbeauch on Jan 20, 2013 6:08:02 GMT -8
Demand 10x greater than anticipated. Hmmmmmmm not sure I am buying that. That would put it past the SGIII.
|
|
|
Post by tonyrocker on Jan 20, 2013 6:40:33 GMT -8
... Some observations as I see it... 1. Open options that are assigned (in the money and not closed out) are a neutral market force on the day the option expires. Out of the money options that remain open at expiration also have no impact on the stock price. As a side note... The impact on the stock price occurred when the option contracts were opened. In other words, buying a long call places upwards pressure while buying a put places downward pressure because market makers hedge. 2. Closing an open contract moves the underlying stock in the opposite direction. How many will be closed out on option expiration day? 3. One must compare the quantity of open puts to calls that may be closed out. The closing contracts (puts vs calls) push or pull the price in opposite directions. 4. One must compare the derivative quantity of shares that the open contracts represent (that might be closed out) against the volume of common shares that are likely to trade. Which current is stronger and in which direction? Numerous interrelated factors cause a stock to pin. A better understanding of the dynamics will enable us to better predict the closing price on expiration day. Please add to and correct my discussion points. I presume I am missing part of the picture. Jeffi Really nice post. Somewhat separate topic: Interestingly I was short 2 $500 calls and they were assigned. After hours price moved above $500.
|
|
|
Post by jeffi on Jan 20, 2013 8:40:13 GMT -8
Something similar may have happened to me with option assignments. Sounds to me like someone made a contract in which he gave the buyer of that contract the right to buy the stock from him at a specified price. More commonly known as "selling to open" an option. And it further sounds like the buyer of that contract exercised the option at an inopportune time (pre-dividend and before the end of the year which caused an unexpected capital gain to be realized). Yes, of course! Don't sell such contracts. ;D Yes, the same thing happened to me on three separate occasions last year. I open many bull call spreads. When the short call is deep in the money it is exposed to being called by the contra party whom is long. The likelihood of this occurring increases when the dividend is equal or greater than the premium on the short call. Therefore, anyone who has set up such a spread should pay attention to the option premium and the dividend and consider closing out the position early. I had spreads on some insurance companies that pay annual dividends. My short call was assigned and I had to pay the dividend! If your long call still has a premium you will pick up some of the loss by closing it immediately. Am I the only one here who this happened to?
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jan 20, 2013 9:01:27 GMT -8
MB, omgdroid.com? I wouldn't buy stories from omgaapl.com either. AAPL is clearly capable of cheap ultrapocketable. But where is the answer between iPod touch and iPhone 5?
|
|
|
Post by jeffi on Jan 20, 2013 9:02:51 GMT -8
From a bullish view of a sell side analyst comes this...
Milunovich, despite recommending the shares, concedes capitulation may be needed:
The tone of our many investor discussions has headed south along with the stock price. On a recent marketing trip, the glass was about 65% empty and 35% full. It is possible that further downside is required to make a final bottom: (1) the stock is not oversold with the RSI at 42; (2) short interest-to-float is just 2%, and (3) sell-side opinion, possibly a contrary indicator, still is largely bullish with over 80% of analysts at a Buy.
Very low short interest. Not oversold after a 200 point drop based on RSI. How do we reconcile this view?
For me, AAPL is simply too cheap. But I thought that in the low $600's and backed up the truck under $550. I have been wrong for too long to trust myself. I want to raise my bet on earnings but I am now gun shy.
|
|
|
Post by lovemyipad on Jan 20, 2013 9:05:37 GMT -8
jeffi, thank you for the thoughtful post. Apology accepted. RE: assignment of the short leg of a spread, lorenzo has some excellent posts on the subject in one of our trading threads. Go here: Exercise and Assignment
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jan 20, 2013 9:10:52 GMT -8
Heheh. Sell siders gotta sell.
Expand that knowledge base!
How? Short interest trend this year. Short interest from a time when AAPL was a favorite stock TO short. I did my homework in about 2 minutes via iPhone. Let's see what you get.
RSI? Complete and utter cherry-picking. If you don't know what I mean, you need to read up on timeframes.
As for sell-siders not capitulating - it's not hard for even a sell-sider to be optimistic when a theoretical 20-multiple company trades for nearly half that now is it?
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jan 20, 2013 9:18:03 GMT -8
Oh btw iPad, I may have inadvertently found another bottoming indicator (short interest on AAPL). It really is useful to check the number now and then.
|
|
|
Post by jeffi on Jan 20, 2013 9:25:31 GMT -8
Heheh. Sell siders gotta sell. Expand that knowledge base! How? Short interest trend this year. Short interest from a time when AAPL was a favorite stock TO short. I did my homework in about 2 minutes via iPhone. Let's see what you get. RSI? Complete and utter cherry-picking. If you don't know what I mean, you need to read up on timeframes. As for sell-siders not capitulating - it's not hard for even a sell-sider to be optimistic when a theoretical 20-multiple company trades for nearly half that now is it? I largely agree, but we've been wrong. Therefore I must question our view. (FYI: Apple is still my largest holding.) 2% short interest may be an increase from prior levels, but relative to most stocks, it is low. Many complain about short sellers. Seems misplaced in regards to AAPL.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jan 20, 2013 9:33:54 GMT -8
I don't see you addressing some of my points.
The point about short interest is confined to AAPL - to bring in outside stocks confuses the discussion. And you still haven't told me AAPL's short interest in a very, very bad downtrend.
iPad, is RSI 42 "everywhere"? (Though yes, it is the ultimate answer to...)
|
|
|
Post by lovemyipad on Jan 20, 2013 9:55:53 GMT -8
Oh btw iPad, I may have inadvertently found another bottoming indicator (short interest on AAPL). It really is useful to check the number now and then. Agree! I do routinely check the figures -- the 11/15 spike was telling -- but I wish we didn't have such a lag in data reporting of short interest. Daily short volume is available (though TELL me how to reconcile these numbers!), but to my knowledge, not daily short interest. Short VolumeShort InterestI need to update the table in: This PostGregg, any interest or insights to add? I've been meaning to post one of the spreadsheets I started last summer (need to update first) for tracking the daily OI on particular popular strikes (like JAN'13 500, ha!).
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jan 20, 2013 9:59:30 GMT -8
Chas needs to start a blog - Butterfly Catcher let's call it. That way we can also blame him when our trades go wrong ;D
|
|
|
Post by jeffi on Jan 20, 2013 10:02:57 GMT -8
I don't see you addressing some of my points. The point about short interest is confined to AAPL - to bring in outside stocks confuses the discussion. And you still haven't told me AAPL's short interest in a very, very bad downtrend. iPad, is RSI 42 "everywhere"? (Though yes, it is the ultimate answer to...) I think relative short interest is a meaningful data point if we are going to blame short interest as the culprit for the drop. Yes, AAPL's short interest has trended up, if I recall correctly from about 1% to about 2%. From my view, this is not material relative to a 30% or 200 point drop. In other words, blaming shorts appears misplaced although not as bad as blaming a conspiracy on pinning action on option expiration day that is largely the mechanical action of option contracts being closed.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jan 20, 2013 10:18:32 GMT -8
"In other words, blaming shorts appears misplaced although not as bad as blaming a conspiracy on pinning action on option expiration day that is largely the mechanical action of option contracts being closed."
That's nice. And confusing. I don't see anyone blaming short interest for anything.
|
|
|
Post by jeffi on Jan 20, 2013 10:30:26 GMT -8
"In other words, blaming shorts appears misplaced although not as bad as blaming a conspiracy on pinning action on option expiration day that is largely the mechanical action of option contracts being closed." That's nice. And confusing. I don't see anyone blaming short interest for anything. It's my recollection that many have complained in the daily threads throughout this decline about insideous manipulation in which shorting is mentioned as one of the culprits. I hope I'm wrong, because I believe that is misplaced. Sorry to confuse you.
|
|
|
Post by lovemyipad on Jan 20, 2013 10:45:08 GMT -8
jeffi, I respectfully submit for your consideration a paradigm shift wherein you do not summarily dismiss factors that contribute to price movement as "blaming."
Many ingredients go into the mix, each of which provide potential clues.
IMHO, the value of knowing the short interest is not at all "blaming shorts for the decline," but recognizing those outstanding shares must be COVERED. Under the right circumstances (e.g., a timely injection of capital that moves the stock price up), stops will trigger on those shorts. When shorts buy to cover, those market orders hit the asking price fuel a positive feedback loop, driving prices UP.
Note the high short interest reported 11/15. As price went up, those shorts were forced to cover. Short covering fuels more buying, moving price higher, popping MORE stops, etc. In an uptrend, short covering provides rocket fuel -- shorts exit, longs enter -- a contributing factor to the 594 spike. In a downtrend, short covering contributes to support levels -- shorts were buyers at 483.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jan 20, 2013 10:46:09 GMT -8
Well I didn't.
So why make it sound like I did?
Shorting puts downside pressure on a stock? Knock me over with a feather!
(Oh and sometimes it doesn't work. See: AMZN.)
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Jan 20, 2013 10:50:11 GMT -8
Correct. Short interest is a puzzle piece for sentiment. And sometimes a leading indicator.
And literally, an expression of how much unlimited risk appetite there is in hopes that a stock will trade down.
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Jan 20, 2013 11:09:04 GMT -8
I was lurking on the old AFB since 2008 and then started to participate and eventually made my way over to Lovey's Place when she hung her shingle out. I don't think that in all this time - INCLUDING THE DAY AFTER SJ'S DEATH - I have felt such uncertainty with which way this stock is going and how earnings will be. There are usually a few - at a minimum - who are very confident with their numbers. I see none of that this time around. Maybe AAPL has shown us that they can be fallible or maybe they have shaken many of us to the core - literally. I personally have never felt this uneasy which is why my positions are much smaller...but I just know how upset I will be if they are good and I am not all in - damn!
|
|
|
Post by jeffi on Jan 20, 2013 11:10:56 GMT -8
jeffi, I respectfully submit for your consideration a paradigm shift wherein you do not summarily dismiss factors that contribute to price movement as "blaming." Many ingredients go into the mix, each of which provide potential clues. IMHO, the value of knowing the short interest is not at all "blaming shorts for the decline," but recognizing those outstanding shares must be COVERED. Under the right circumstances (e.g., a timely injection of capital that moves the stock price up), stops will trigger on those shorts. When shorts buy to cover, those market orders hit the asking price fuel a positive feedback loop, driving prices UP. Note the high short interest reported 11/15. As price went up, those shorts were forced to cover. Short covering fuels more buying, moving price higher, popping MORE stops, etc. In an uptrend, short covering provides rocket fuel -- shorts exit, longs enter -- a contributing factor to the 594 spike. In a downtrend, short covering contributes to support levels -- shorts were buyers at 483. I think you misunderstood me. Of course, all of these actions, including shorting impact price. Additionally, I understand that a high short interest could potentially be bullish as the shorts will eventually buy to cover. The point I was trying to make was that short interest is and has been low. Low as defined relative to other stocks. Therefore, it would not appear to be a material component to account for AAPL's stock price volatility.
|
|
|
Post by lovemyipad on Jan 20, 2013 11:12:43 GMT -8
Low "as defined to other stocks" is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by lovemyipad on Jan 20, 2013 11:14:58 GMT -8
Anyone interested in exploring the relevance of short interest to price movement, I'm opening a thread in the trading area...
|
|
|
Post by jeffi on Jan 20, 2013 11:17:37 GMT -8
Well I didn't. So why make it sound like I did? Shorting puts downside pressure on a stock? Knock me over with a feather! (Oh and sometimes it doesn't work. See: AMZN.) Your tone is off base. Please reread our string. I specifically said "many on this board". I did not say you. You continued to question me about this topic. I responded.
|
|