Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Nov 23, 2013 11:54:19 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by rezonate on Jan 28, 2014 13:43:06 GMT -8
Has anyone ever done a study to extract any pattern from Apple's press event scheduling? As in "press invited 5 business days prior to an event, +/- 1 for minor events, 8 days +/- 2 for major events. (Major defined as XXX, Minor defined as XX), etc. There is undoubtedly a formula and we can read the tea leaves. Maybe roll in the chatter from the rest of the rumor mill, talking heads, advance reviews, regular & sketchy sources. Don't nominate me to do the work! Maybe someone is doing this already at Braeburn Group?
|
|
|
Post by Zeke on Feb 7, 2014 12:48:23 GMT -8
I've been trying to formulate my thoughts around Apple's share price and market behavior for some time, and I've now come to some conclusions:
As Apple's share price has risen to the mid 3 figures, more and more investors have turned to options as a way to leverage their money. This, in turn makes the price of AAPL more and more dependent on options open interest and options expiration activity. As the volume and price of calls and puts shifts, the big money options sellers hedge their bets by buying and selling AAPL shares, with the end result being that the share price is naturally driven toward that mythical point called "Max Pain" every week and every month. This phenomenon limits AAPL's price performance to whatever options buyers THINK it should be a week or a month (and to some extent, a year) in the future. This, I think, is what has divorced the share price of AAPL from it's fundamentals, and even its immediate performance. Anyone who seriously watches AAPL cannot argue that AAPL's share price has much to do with its actual performance. I think that a stock split that reduces AAPL's share price to the 2 digit range would discourage the use of options by a lot of investors, and return them to buying common shares as their primary investment. This would, in turn, greatly reduce the effect of "Max Pain" on the share price every week and every month at options expiration. Does this make any sense to you?
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Feb 7, 2014 13:15:33 GMT -8
Until we hear otherwise from the Board, 2-to-1 is the best Apple can do.
GOOG, NFLX, AMZN seem OK with "high prices". None have quite the attention and scrutiny that AAPL gets.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2014 19:14:36 GMT -8
Until we hear otherwise from the Board, 2-to-1 is the best Apple can do. GOOG, NFLX, AMZN seem OK with "high prices". None have quite the attention and scrutiny that AAPL gets. Until we hear from the board, no split is going to happen...who said anything about 2 to 1? A split isn't a big deal, but I'd prefer 10 to 1 just cause I like to buy in 100 share chunks, and it's a little tough at these levels I really don't think it matters one way or the other...Berkshire Hathaway did fine for a long time and their stock was over $100,000.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Feb 7, 2014 21:35:25 GMT -8
2-to-1 is all Apple CAN do because of its 1.8B max outstanding share authorization. Maybe I was being a bit imprecise but the point is, the Board has to authorize more outstanding shares if ever it wanted to do a bigger share split.
I have no idea if a share split is on the way but my tinfoil theory is Apple's seriously thinking about it.
|
|
|
Post by Zeke on Feb 10, 2014 15:12:51 GMT -8
I really hope so. It would do us retail investors much more good than any buy back program. I also think it would reduce the influence of options traders on the price of 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 Mar 22, 2014 10:31:29 GMT -8
|
|