Dave
Member
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,335
|
Post by Dave on Feb 7, 2023 2:16:09 GMT -8
Top of the morning. We start this Tuesday with a green pre-market at +0.05% at this moment. What will the economic data be today and what will be the markets response?
|
|
Dave
Member
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,335
|
Post by Dave on Feb 7, 2023 2:21:56 GMT -8
|
|
chinacat
Moderator
AAPL Long since 2006
Posts: 4,438
|
Post by chinacat on Feb 7, 2023 6:07:05 GMT -8
|
|
Dave
Member
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,335
|
Post by Dave on Feb 7, 2023 7:20:52 GMT -8
In the Motley Fool story I think that #6 is the most troubling and long reaching problem.
|
|
Dave
Member
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,335
|
Post by Dave on Feb 7, 2023 7:29:13 GMT -8
|
|
Dave
Member
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,335
|
Post by Dave on Feb 7, 2023 7:40:24 GMT -8
|
|
Ted
fire starter
Posts: 892
|
Post by Ted on Feb 7, 2023 8:48:52 GMT -8
The Motley Fool article chinacat linked to is a cautionary view with scary "red flags," but ends with:
"Most of Apple's aforementioned red flags are cyclical instead of existential. Its elevated valuation and Hankey's departure are a bit troubling, but Apple should remain one of the safest blue-chip tech stocks to buy and hold for the foreseeable future."
Thanks for putting the article in context, Fools.
|
|
chinacat
Moderator
AAPL Long since 2006
Posts: 4,438
|
Post by chinacat on Feb 7, 2023 9:08:14 GMT -8
In the Motley Fool story I think that #6 is the most troubling and long reaching problem. Despite all the negatives, the advice is… ”Most of Apple's aforementioned red flags are cyclical instead of existential. Its elevated valuation and Hankey's departure are a bit troubling, but Apple should remain one of the safest blue-chip tech stocks to buy and hold for the foreseeable future.” That works for me, and I assume that all of the clever traders here will be able exploit the ups and downs in the near term. Meanwhile, it’s time for an increase to the dividend, though I would guess that Tim and the board will continue the recent modest increases in the current fiscal climate.
|
|
chinacat
Moderator
AAPL Long since 2006
Posts: 4,438
|
Post by chinacat on Feb 7, 2023 9:09:51 GMT -8
Well, Ted, looks like great minds think alike.
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,867
|
Post by 4aapl on Feb 7, 2023 10:35:02 GMT -8
Two of the big economic topics to justify rate increases and possibly cause a recession, at least in articles about it if not directly from the Fed, have been the unemployment rate and inflation. But I haven't seen much on a couple details about these. On the unemployment rate, it's now at lows not seen for XX years. But look at the labor participation rate. While not completely horrible at basically 62%, that's back to levels seeing in the late 1970's. It's nowhere near the bubbly tops of 67% and 66% seen in 2000 and 2007, nor the more standard times of 64% from the early 80's and 66% from the early 90's. Keeping jobs flat, and if participation includes those looking for a job (I believe it does), going from 62% to 64% would boost that unemployment rate up to over 6%. From a labor market perspective, that would give employers more choices, and less pressure to increase salaries, a cause of inflation. (EDIT: tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-participation-rate , change the chart to 25 year or max) On inflation, it looks to me that the monthly data for the past 6 months is right at or even below where the Fed wants it. The 12-month figures still look high, but the monthly annualizes out to below 2%. I don't see the Fed really wanting inflation to go negative to balance out the longer trend (ie 5 year average) to make that 2-3%. Instead, I see them wanting annualized figures going forward to be in that 2-3%. Does that seem like what they want? It's not all simple, and IMO we're in that timeframe where they have to keep up the pressure on the brakes and their verbiage, at least somewhat, in order to make sure that it sticks. OTOH, 6 months of figures show they are currently on course, so looking forward another 3-6 months, unless things change, the 12 month data should be confirming things and the Fed should pretty happy with inflation. I don't try to guess at when they will decrease rates, but at least they will have that as a viable option. (CPI monthly data: data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUUR0000SA0&output_view=pct_1mth ) So what am I missing here? Why aren't we reading or hearing about these things, that are only one step away from the main figures? Is this the wrong way to look at things? Or is this what some on the internal teams are thinking about, while the mainstream isn't there yet?
|
|
Ted
fire starter
Posts: 892
|
Post by Ted on Feb 7, 2023 11:12:00 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by hledgard on Feb 7, 2023 13:10:23 GMT -8
In the Motley Fool story I think that #6 is the most troubling and long reaching problem. I agree with Dave, #6 is indeed troubling. It almost sounds like a committee will be designing future Apple products. Who has the vision? Who has the time to look at the details that Apple has nicely handled. Who will have the high level ideas, for example how to stop the ballooning and strange nature of Apple settings #7 is also an issue for me. At some point, the glamour of Apple stock will lesson, and so will the financials, including the PE.
|
|
|
Post by archibaldtuttle on Feb 7, 2023 13:11:00 GMT -8
Two of the big economic topics to justify rate increases and possibly cause a recession, at least in articles about it if not directly from the Fed, have been the unemployment rate and inflation. But I haven't seen much on a couple details about these. On the unemployment rate, it's now at lows not seen for XX years. But look at the labor participation rate. While not completely horrible at basically 62%, that's back to levels seeing in the late 1970's. It's nowhere near the bubbly tops of 67% and 66% seen in 2000 and 2007, nor the more standard times of 64% from the early 80's and 66% from the early 90's. Keeping jobs flat, and if participation includes those looking for a job (I believe it does), going from 62% to 64% would boost that unemployment rate up to over 6%. From a labor market perspective, that would give employers more choices, and less pressure to increase salaries, a cause of inflation. (EDIT: tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-participation-rate , change the chart to 25 year or max) On inflation, it looks to me that the monthly data for the past 6 months is right at or even below where the Fed wants it. The 12-month figures still look high, but the monthly annualizes out to below 2%. I don't see the Fed really wanting inflation to go negative to balance out the longer trend (ie 5 year average) to make that 2-3%. Instead, I see them wanting annualized figures going forward to be in that 2-3%. Does that seem like what they want? It's not all simple, and IMO we're in that timeframe where they have to keep up the pressure on the brakes and their verbiage, at least somewhat, in order to make sure that it sticks. OTOH, 6 months of figures show they are currently on course, so looking forward another 3-6 months, unless things change, the 12 month data should be confirming things and the Fed should pretty happy with inflation. I don't try to guess at when they will decrease rates, but at least they will have that as a viable option. (CPI monthly data: data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUUR0000SA0&output_view=pct_1mth ) So what am I missing here? Why aren't we reading or hearing about these things, that are only one step away from the main figures? Is this the wrong way to look at things? Or is this what some on the internal teams are thinking about, while the mainstream isn't there yet? Personally, I believe the low unemployment rate and low labor participation rate are connected, and based on a simple structural reason: COVID. Besides having killed some non-zero percentage of the work force in the last 3 years, COVID has also created long-term disability in another chunk of people. Even if it's just a few percent of the labor force, that's enough to heavily skew the numbers. Plus the fear of getting COVID from some others who have health issues and who otherwise would be working, but dont want to risk their lives to do so. Nothing the Fed can do to change these factors and bring more people into the labor supply. That's why their rate raises have had little effect on the unemployment rate. The only way raising rates can affect the unemployment rate in this environment is by eventually hurting companies and creating layoffs.
|
|
Dave
Member
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,335
|
Post by Dave on Feb 7, 2023 14:01:23 GMT -8
Also, the Baby-Boomer generation that is cashing out and retiring, which was accelerated by the Covid fear. They are also cashing out of their riskier investments and moving into something that is a little safer and dependable. The worlds demographics are changing.
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,867
|
Post by 4aapl on Feb 7, 2023 14:28:29 GMT -8
Two of the big economic topics to justify rate increases and possibly cause a recession, at least in articles about it if not directly from the Fed, have been the unemployment rate and inflation. But I haven't seen much on a couple details about these. On the unemployment rate, it's now at lows not seen for XX years. But look at the labor participation rate. While not completely horrible at basically 62%, that's back to levels seeing in the late 1970's. It's nowhere near the bubbly tops of 67% and 66% seen in 2000 and 2007, nor the more standard times of 64% from the early 80's and 66% from the early 90's. Keeping jobs flat, and if participation includes those looking for a job (I believe it does), going from 62% to 64% would boost that unemployment rate up to over 6%. From a labor market perspective, that would give employers more choices, and less pressure to increase salaries, a cause of inflation. (EDIT: tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-participation-rate , change the chart to 25 year or max) On inflation, it looks to me that the monthly data for the past 6 months is right at or even below where the Fed wants it. The 12-month figures still look high, but the monthly annualizes out to below 2%. I don't see the Fed really wanting inflation to go negative to balance out the longer trend (ie 5 year average) to make that 2-3%. Instead, I see them wanting annualized figures going forward to be in that 2-3%. Does that seem like what they want? It's not all simple, and IMO we're in that timeframe where they have to keep up the pressure on the brakes and their verbiage, at least somewhat, in order to make sure that it sticks. OTOH, 6 months of figures show they are currently on course, so looking forward another 3-6 months, unless things change, the 12 month data should be confirming things and the Fed should pretty happy with inflation. I don't try to guess at when they will decrease rates, but at least they will have that as a viable option. (CPI monthly data: data.bls.gov/timeseries/CUUR0000SA0&output_view=pct_1mth ) So what am I missing here? Why aren't we reading or hearing about these things, that are only one step away from the main figures? Is this the wrong way to look at things? Or is this what some on the internal teams are thinking about, while the mainstream isn't there yet? Personally, I believe the low unemployment rate and low labor participation rate are connected, and based on a simple structural reason: COVID. Besides having killed some non-zero percentage of the work force in the last 3 years, COVID has also created long-term disability in another chunk of people. Even if it's just a few percent of the labor force, that's enough to heavily skew the numbers. Plus the fear of getting COVID from some others who have health issues and who otherwise would be working, but dont want to risk their lives to do so. Nothing the Fed can do to change these factors and bring more people into the labor supply. That's why their rate raises have had little effect on the unemployment rate. The only way raising rates can affect the unemployment rate in this environment is by eventually hurting companies and creating layoffs. I like the idea, of looking wider. The participation rate is only about 0.5% below where the average was before Covid. So one person out of 200. That seems too low to matter much, but if my rough numbers are right, putting that person back into the "looking for work" group would raise the unemployment rate by something like 0.8%. On the Fed rates affecting the unemployment rate, higher interest rates could get more people searching for work, to pay for their mortgage, credit card, etc. Just as inflation could. There's a kid renting a room across the street, that left Tesla (he called it that, but then said he was with the Solar group, with sales of the solar tiles for roofs) when it moved his area off to Tennessee or Georgia or something. Anyways, he's a younger guy, but apparently is in that middle ground of not having much money, but not looking for work either, until just now. He had some issues with his newer car, which is unfortunate, but it's good to hear that he's at least doing some interviews now. Sometimes it takes a little push. I don't really think most people keep much in touch with the Fed moves, just as many might not know about the State of the Union address or possibly even the big earthquake in Turkey and Syria. The 15 cent increase per loaf of bread (Costco sourdough, 2-pack) doesn't add up much by itself. But eventually it comes around, and something acts as the little catalyst to get people moving. Ideally this happens while there are still jobs to be had, instead of later in a larger recession when there might not be many spare jobs available.
|
|
4aapl
Moderator
Posts: 3,867
|
Post by 4aapl on Feb 7, 2023 15:19:07 GMT -8
But in general he sees a paradigm shift due to not having extremely cheap borrowing as he expects the Fed to hold interest rates up for a while. While also hoping this quells the "Amazon disease" of people investing too much in companies that aren't yet making money. finance.yahoo.com/news/big-short-hedge-funder-says-212252104.htmlIt's an interesting reminder, though pretty similar to something several here have talked about.
|
|
|
Post by Luckychoices on Feb 7, 2023 15:20:04 GMT -8
The Motley Fool is in complete panic mode with 7 Red Flags for Apple's Future. It asks “Should you invest $1,000 in Apple right now?” Worrying about the cost of half a dozen shares is not exactly a crisis. I do read/scan The Motley Fool...particularly when the link is posted on AFB. But I long ago decided that a site that was intending to give serious *positive* guidance about a stock wouldn't follow the article with the question, "Should you invest...". Especially, such as in the piece you linked, when they immediately answer that question with, "The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just revealed their 10 Best Buys Now...and "Your Stock Here" wasn't one of them. Clearly, the main intention of the majority of their article is to pull in readers for 10 Best Buys Now.
|
|
|
Post by Lstream on Feb 7, 2023 16:36:36 GMT -8
Like many things, Motley (which I consider somewhat of an entertainment site, not a serious investment advice site), point #6 could be interpreted positively or negatively. We have already heard the negative side.
The positive side is that the 20 designers, have had their status elevated, by removing one layer of management between them and Williams. Which includes larger roles for some. That could be motivational. To me, only those with an agenda would jump to the conclusion below
What makes these guys think that Apple is now going to lose the skimmer and sleeker role due to this change? That is just more page-hit driven speculation.
But hey, if some of you guys want to jump on that bandwagon, go ahead. I’m not buying such amateur-hour “analysis”.
|
|
|
Post by Luckychoices on Feb 7, 2023 17:06:03 GMT -8
Like many things, Motley (which I consider somewhat of an entertainment site, not a serious investment advice site), point #6 could be interpreted positively or negatively. We have already heard the negative side. The positive side is that the 20 designers, have had their status elevated, by removing one layer of management between them and Williams. Which includes larger roles for some. That could be motivational. To me, only those with an agenda would jump to the conclusion below What makes these guys think that Apple is now going to lose the skimmer and sleeker role due to this change? That is just more page-hit driven speculation. But hey, if some of you guys want to jump on that bandwagon, go ahead. I’m not buying such amateur-hour “analysis”. The elevated status for the 20 designers didn't occur to me...thanks for pointing it out. But the "slimmer and sleeker" comment did remind me of some of the critique I've read over the years about Jony Ive. Yes, most considered him an amazing designer with great instincts...but I think it's worthwhile to read though this article from 2019 if you'd not previously read it: Jony Ive’s Mistakes: When Beautiful Design Is Bad Design The author is a person who recognizes and comments upon Jony Ive's brilliant design capability but is also willing to call out his mistakes..."slimmer and sleeker" isn't always the way to go if utility and function is lost to appearance.
|
|
|
Post by Lstream on Feb 7, 2023 17:14:32 GMT -8
I think what Motley is trying to do is to fabricate an argument that Apple’s designs are going to get worse, as a result of the org change. And they are using slimmer and sleeker, as their way of doing this. I think they have no basis for this speculation. I agree that slimmer and sleeker is not always better.
|
|
mark
fire starter
Posts: 1,631
|
Post by mark on Feb 7, 2023 21:39:26 GMT -8
Like many things, Motley (which I consider somewhat of an entertainment site, not a serious investment advice site), point #6 could be interpreted positively or negatively. We have already heard the negative side. The positive side is that the 20 designers, have had their status elevated, by removing one layer of management between them and Williams. Which includes larger roles for some. That could be motivational. To me, only those with an agenda would jump to the conclusion below What makes these guys think that Apple is now going to lose the skimmer and sleeker role due to this change? That is just more page-hit driven speculation. But hey, if some of you guys want to jump on that bandwagon, go ahead. I’m not buying such amateur-hour “analysis”. Other companies are going "slimmer and sleeker" by removing layers of management. 😁 fortune.com/2023/02/07/meta-mark-zuckerberg-flattening-managers-transition-new-roles-efficiency/
|
|
Dave
Member
"It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." Yogi Berra
Posts: 4,335
|
Post by Dave on Feb 8, 2023 2:48:42 GMT -8
Or, it’s a way to remove internal resistance, competition, and to further solidify power within the company. Unfortunately the leader finds himself surrounded by “yes persons” and becomes insulated from reality.
|
|