|
Post by lovemyipad on May 13, 2013 12:32:37 GMT -8
Whole Lot of Nuthin' Day. ;D
|
|
|
Post by po1nt on May 13, 2013 12:35:20 GMT -8
In other news, both the 13EMA/SMA50 and the SMA20/SMA50 crossed today, albeit without as much conviction as I would like. Did anyone buy based on these crosses? I'm watching the 8-day EMA as my guide. I bought a partial position off the bounce.
|
|
|
Post by lovemyipad on May 13, 2013 12:37:57 GMT -8
A trade for 160K shares @ 454.77 at 4:12 in AH. Here's a screenshot of Time & Sales showing trades over 5K shares for today:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2013 12:40:32 GMT -8
Whole Lot of Nuthin' Day. ;D Boring day today, but I'll take a boring GREEN $1.77 day anytime...a month or two of those and we'll be up above $500 in no time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2013 12:41:30 GMT -8
AAPL's apparent decline in ISM (PE) has been bothering me, as well as many others, for some time. I couldn't understand why it was so low in relation to others such as Amazon and Google.
Then it occurred to me that the institutions may have priced AAPL after adjusting GM% on Apple's 10Q filings.
What if WS considered Apple's GM% from FQ2/2011 through FQ$/2012 as unsustainable, and recalculated Apple's results using the average GM% attained during the 9 quarter period FQ1/2009 through FQ1/2011? Had WS done that AAPL's ISM (PE) would have ranged as follows (calculated against Quarter high trading price): FQ2/2011 30.00 FQ3/2011 28.83 FQ4/2011 22.95
FQ1/2012 14.95 FQ2/2012 18.35 FQ3/2012 20.16 FQ4/2012 15.02
Assume sustainable GM percentages, which is what Apple management is now guiding, these ISMs seem to reflect a more accurate fair value for AAPL.
In future I will be comparing Apple's performance against SUSTAINABLE Gross Margin percentages.
The quarters described in my ISM results are defined as Earnings date to Earnings date.
|
|
|
Post by pauls on May 13, 2013 12:41:59 GMT -8
"If the product comes with exclusive content or some other unique capability, then my previous comment on $2K could be off base."
I don't think the product needs exclusive content, just more robust content. And unique capabilities would be a given, considering the iOS ecosystem.
|
|
|
Post by moltenfire on May 13, 2013 12:46:54 GMT -8
In other news, both the 13EMA/SMA50 and the SMA20/SMA50 crossed today, albeit without as much conviction as I would like. Did anyone buy based on these crosses? It looked like it crossed on the 20 minute chart but not on the 1 hour chart. I think I jumped the gun on this one
|
|
|
Post by appledoc on May 13, 2013 12:47:59 GMT -8
In other news, both the 13EMA/SMA50 and the SMA20/SMA50 crossed today, albeit without as much conviction as I would like. Did anyone buy based on these crosses? I don't see a cross on the 20/50. Looks like it will happen in 2 days though.
|
|
|
Post by Lstream on May 13, 2013 12:52:29 GMT -8
"If the product comes with exclusive content or some other unique capability, then my previous comment on $2K could be off base." I don't think the product needs exclusive content, just more robust content. And unique capabilities would be a given, considering the iOS ecosystem. Except that those iOS ecosystem capabilities are already available with a $99 Apple TV. Why spend $2K to get what you can already get for $99? We need something that only the TV delivers, if indeed Apple is actually working on a TV, and not just a much improved Apple TV device, which is where I would be placing my bets.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2013 12:54:28 GMT -8
Or they could do a lot with just a box. If the interface works, and the content is there (2nd one the big IF), I imagine best in industry hardware, too. Or maybe just hope. Hardware isn't the problem with current TVs. It's the rigidity of content delivery schedules, and the TV controller interface. Addressing these two points does not require a new TV, it only requires scheduling controlled by the viewer and an Apple designed interface. AppleTV. With millions already in use. When the content deals have been made Apple releases a new interface (AppleTV vX.0), and AppleTV is no longer a hobby. Another market dominating iOS product category is borne: Check
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2013 13:03:58 GMT -8
Except that those iOS ecosystem capabilities are already available with a $99 Apple TV. Why spend $2K to get what you can already get for $99? We need something that only the TV delivers, if indeed Apple is actually working on a TV, and not just a much improved Apple TV device, which is where I would be placing my bets. EXACTLYiOS is beginning to show up in automobile integrations. Apple did not have to get into the automobile business to make automobiles better. All Apple needs are proprietor hooks into a TV's interface (license deals with TV manufacturers) to bring TV interfaces into the 21st Century. An Apple interface/integration would make any TV more valuable than one without.
|
|
|
Post by Red Shirted Ensign on May 13, 2013 13:05:39 GMT -8
Whole Lot of Nuthin' Day. ;D Boring day today, but I'll take a boring GREEN $1.77 day anytime...a month or two of those and we'll be up above $500 in no time. Funny....I just thought of today as constructive and that is based on nothing...No TA, No FA, No news...just gut.
|
|
|
Post by lucy on May 13, 2013 13:13:01 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2013 13:30:16 GMT -8
He was doing great until he said $1400 by the end of 2014! He lost me there...That's almost quadrupling in 18 months, has AAPL ever done that?
|
|
|
Post by sponge on May 13, 2013 13:34:36 GMT -8
Or they could do a lot with just a box. If the interface works, and the content is there (2nd one the big IF), I imagine best in industry hardware, too. Or maybe just hope. Hardware isn't the problem with current TVs. It's the rigidity of content delivery schedules, and the TV controller interface. Addressing these two points does not require a new TV, it only requires scheduling controlled by the viewer and an Apple designed interface. AppleTV. With millions already in use. When the content deals have been made Apple releases a new interface (AppleTV vX.0), and AppleTV is no longer a hobby. Another market dominating iOS product category is borne: Check The same thing could have been said about smartphones in 2007. There was no margin at the price points of that time in hardware.
|
|
|
Post by sponge on May 13, 2013 13:36:44 GMT -8
He was doing great until he said $1400 by the end of 2014! He lost me there...That's almost quadrupling in 18 months, has AAPL ever done that? Hey I am not saying that. My price target is 705 or higher by end of 2014. The EW folks are saying $1400.
|
|
|
Post by pauls on May 13, 2013 13:51:56 GMT -8
"If the product comes with exclusive content or some other unique capability, then my previous comment on $2K could be off base." I don't think the product needs exclusive content, just more robust content. And unique capabilities would be a given, considering the iOS ecosystem. Except that those iOS ecosystem capabilities are already available with a $99 Apple TV. Why spend $2K to get what you can already get for $99? We need something that only the TV delivers, if indeed Apple is actually working on a TV, and not just a much improved Apple TV device, which is where I would be placing my bets. You may be right. It's a safe bet. I wager affordable boxes for the masses and premium apple designed sets for a reference of the future of TV. They do it in every category their ecosystem resides in, including monitors. When you have a designer of iconic hardware now in charge of the look and feel of the interface, I think hardware design matters, still. Maybe not to the same degree as phones and tablets....
|
|
|
Post by lovemyipad on May 13, 2013 13:53:49 GMT -8
The EW folks are saying $1400. Who? A statement like that requires that you cite your sources, or don't say anything at all.
|
|
|
Post by sponge on May 13, 2013 13:55:03 GMT -8
He was doing great until he said $1400 by the end of 2014! He lost me there...That's almost quadrupling in 18 months, has AAPL ever done that? Yes. But over a longer period. We went from 82 in March 2009 to 324 by Dec 2010.
|
|
|
Post by sponge on May 13, 2013 13:56:09 GMT -8
The EW folks are saying $1400. Who? A statement like that requires that you cite your sources, or don't say anything at all. Read the link. Ernie is basing his target on EW.
|
|
|
Post by lovemyipad on May 13, 2013 14:12:04 GMT -8
Ernie is not "the EW folks." Ernie is ONE person. One person who is not on my list of EW gurus.* *My short list of EW gurus: Avi and Mace. (Not necessarily in that order. )
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2013 14:22:01 GMT -8
He was doing great until he said $1400 by the end of 2014! He lost me there...That's almost quadrupling in 18 months, has AAPL ever done that? Hey I am not saying that. My price target is 705 or higher by end of 2014. The EW folks are saying $1400. I'm not saying you said $1400, just the author...that's when he lost credibility with me. I'd be pleasently surprised if we saw $600 by the end of next year. I really don't see any room for growth this year, barring an unexpected new product or an early iPhone release.
|
|
|
Post by sponge on May 13, 2013 14:25:28 GMT -8
Ernie is not "the EW folks." Ernie is ONE person. One person who is not on my list of EW gurus.* *My short list of EW gurus: Avi and Mace. (Not necessarily in that order. ) I thought mace mentioned wave 3 taking us to $1400 as well but with no time target.
|
|
|
Post by sponge on May 13, 2013 14:27:25 GMT -8
Hey I am not saying that. My price target is 705 or higher by end of 2014. The EW folks are saying $1400. I'm not saying you said $1400, just the author...that's when he lost credibility with me. I'd be pleasently surprised if we saw $600 by the end of next year. I really don't see any room for growth this year, barring an unexpected new product or an early iPhone release. My mistake. I saw that later. I think we will see growth next year. But I am only projecting 15% eps growth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2013 14:36:34 GMT -8
...That's almost quadrupling in 18 months, has AAPL ever done that? Yes. But over a longer period. We went from 82 in March 2009 to 324 by Dec 2010. The scenario then is much like it is today. In March of 2009 we were just coming off the bank meltdown lows. The value of AAPL at the time was artificially depressed due to MACRO issues. Today, the issues are Apple specific, but as before, AAPL is unrealistically value depressed. As Apple gets past the 2011/2012 compare, and the market recognizes 38% GMs as both industry high AND sustainable, we will see AAPL valuations rise rapidly.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on May 13, 2013 14:57:22 GMT -8
You assume 38% is sustainable. Keep watching that space.
As we all know here, Apple has several more points of GM to give if it deems it necessary.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on May 13, 2013 15:00:08 GMT -8
Red, today could fuel either the bull or bear arguments on a micro basis IMHO. Remains to be seen which way price breaks, and we may even need to wait until we're away from the monthly OpEx tractor beam.
|
|
|
Post by sponge on May 13, 2013 17:12:03 GMT -8
Red, today could fuel either the bull or bear arguments on a micro basis IMHO. Remains to be seen which way price breaks, and we may even need to wait until we're away from the monthly OpEx tractor beam. I agree.
|
|
|
Post by prazan on May 13, 2013 17:12:47 GMT -8
A trade for 160K shares @ 454.77 at 4:12 in AH. Here's a screenshot of Time & Sales showing trades over 5K shares for today: What's the significance? It was neither the biggest trade of the day, nor the smallest.
|
|
|
Post by lovemyipad on May 13, 2013 17:39:17 GMT -8
P, no idea. Just thought it was interesting. I noticed that last one first, then went back to see how many big trades today. Again, no clue re: significance.
|
|