|
Post by phoebear611 on Jan 8, 2014 3:58:26 GMT -8
Good morning.... Lots of discussion yesterday wrt consumer devices and the growth of mobile. This article was interesting and continues to validate our little fruit cart - here is a small excerpt: Mobile phones are expected to dominate overall device shipments, with 1.9 billion mobile phones shipped in 2014, a five percent increase from 2013. Ultramobiles, which include tablets, hybrids and clamshells, will take over as the main driver of growth in the devices market from 2014, with a growth rate of 54 percent....... As has been the case in the recent past, Apple Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL) and Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) can expect to benefit most from the trend. Shipments of devices that run on iOS or Mac OS will rise from 344 million this year to 397 million in 2015. Anyone worried about the fate of Apple can take cheer in the forecast. The success of the iPhone and iPad will trump concerns about their slow demise. Because Apple is believed to make the highest margins on its portable devices, its profits should keep besting those of competition.
(If you wish to read the whole article (altho the above sums it up): 247wallst.com/technology-3/2014/01/08/sales-of-consumer-devices-to-hit-2-5-billion-in-2014/ ) Here's the only problem....WS doesn't seem to care about a company having earnings....or for that matter, great earnings....so until they wake up from their "Dallas" dream segment to face the reality, we will need to be patient. One last thing..this new iPhone cover "Typo" which snaps on with a keyboard that looks like (and supposedly feels like) Blackberry (oh and is being sued by Blackberry) seems interesting for all those folks who love an iPhone but wouldn't switch because of the keyboard. It's getting great reviews.
|
|
|
Post by Red Shirted Ensign on Jan 8, 2014 7:17:25 GMT -8
Relative strength today. Such a strange stock......
|
|
|
Post by po1nt on Jan 8, 2014 7:49:41 GMT -8
whoa, I think I just felt my d*ck move! Nice strength this AM. It appears for now we hold the 50-day
|
|
|
Post by macwire on Jan 8, 2014 7:55:49 GMT -8
I think I'm the problem. Checked a quote. Up 5. Go piss. Come back. Up 2.5
|
|
coma
Member
Posts: 523
|
Post by coma on Jan 8, 2014 7:58:12 GMT -8
Don't piss again . . .
|
|
|
Post by macwire on Jan 8, 2014 8:31:59 GMT -8
drank too much coffee! Ahhhh
|
|
|
Post by gtrplyr on Jan 8, 2014 9:14:20 GMT -8
Stay Classy AAPL finance board ...
|
|
chinacat
Moderator
AAPL Long since 2006
Posts: 4,433
|
Post by chinacat on Jan 8, 2014 9:45:48 GMT -8
Where is everybody? Has the new forum software scared them off? Or is everyone just hard at work on their spreadsheets before earnings?
|
|
|
Post by aapl4kiki on Jan 8, 2014 9:55:17 GMT -8
Where is everybody? Has the new forum software scared them off? Or is everyone just hard at work on their spreadsheets before earnings? Everyone hanging out in the shoutbox. The regular board blows. #shoutbox #500callwall
|
|
chinacat
Moderator
AAPL Long since 2006
Posts: 4,433
|
Post by chinacat on Jan 8, 2014 10:46:40 GMT -8
Where is everybody? Has the new forum software scared them off? Or is everyone just hard at work on their spreadsheets before earnings? Everyone hanging out in the shoutbox. The regular board blows. #shoutbox #500callwall I must be doing it wrong, because the last thing I see there (14 hours ago) is my own question about whether the new format affected the Proboards app (I don't currently use it, but would consider it for a better interface.)
|
|
|
Post by hledgard on Jan 8, 2014 11:03:59 GMT -8
Way too much white space. The lack of compression makes it harder to see the various trains of thought.
|
|
|
Post by podboy on Jan 8, 2014 11:09:50 GMT -8
"way too much white space" Ahhh, reminds me of better days over at the Mac Observer when they changed the format of the board. AAPL hasn't had too much luck ever since the great migration last year over to lovely's place. Here's to the new layout bringing some mojo back to AAPL in 2014!
|
|
|
Post by archibaldtuttle on Jan 8, 2014 11:19:28 GMT -8
|
|
chinacat
Moderator
AAPL Long since 2006
Posts: 4,433
|
Post by chinacat on Jan 8, 2014 11:20:44 GMT -8
Way too much white space. The lack of compression makes it harder to see the various trains of thought. Amen to that. Meanwhile, in an attempt to lure at least some of the trader-types back to Intraday, I offer Timing of Apple Earnings Has Options Traders Scrambling for review and comment. McharlieM, your commentary on such matters is always of interest.
|
|
|
Post by cbingle on Jan 8, 2014 14:22:34 GMT -8
Back off suspension....still looking for run into earnings.
|
|
|
Post by mcharliem on Jan 8, 2014 14:35:13 GMT -8
Way too much white space. The lack of compression makes it harder to see the various trains of thought. Amen to that. Meanwhile, in an attempt to lure at least some of the trader-types back to Intraday, I offer Timing of Apple Earnings Has Options Traders Scrambling for review and comment. McharlieM, your commentary on such matters is always of interest. First off, ignore all the details in that article on how prices reacted, they're all irrelevant because it's comparing today vs Tuesday when the date was announced Monday evening. The article should've been written yesterday and used Monday's vol pricing as its comparison. As of the end of December, the implied vol on all the January expirations were pointing pretty solidly (i.e. close to 100% chance) to a release during the week of the 24th (meaning the 5 days prior to the 24th). Over the first few days of January, the implied vol on the 24th options started to drop little by little, and at the end of the day Monday, it was implying about a 50% chance of being that week and a 50% chance of being the following week (Jan 31st). As soon as it was announced and the options opened for trading on Tuesday, the vol on the 24th lost all of its earnings premium and its vol came down roughly in line with the week of Jan 18th. Had someone known that the earnings were going to be the week of the 31st, it would've been extremely easy to make a killing with very little risk. All someone would have to do is short a ton of at-the-money options for the 24th, and buy an equal amount for the 31st. This would put a time spread on and would be a huge winner once the 24th vol dropped. The time spread would leave you short some gamma and long some theta, so to hedge that you'd add a few extra at-the-money straddles to give you some gamma at the expense of some theta. The end result of that position would be extremely hedged. The risk would be if the vol on the 24th spiked (or vol on 31st dropped) and the reward would be if the vol on the 24th dropped (or 31st spiked). Any movement of AAPL itself wouldn't matter because the position is hedged. We know now when the date was announced, the vol on the 24th dropped a ton. But it also started moving to the halfway point in the week prior to this Monday. So I think it's safe to say people were putting on that trade over the past week, and that's what started the sell-off in 24th vol leading up to the actual announcement. Those people ending up being right and I'm sure profited nicely. This is just one example of how people may put on extremely large option positions without caring at all about AAPL's price movement. It's important to remember because so much of the volume and open interest you see is 100% hedged. It's why I think many on this board are greatly exaggerating the effect that option trading has on the underlying share price. It's just my opinion, but it's the Icahns of the world and when they get in and out of a $2B position that has a much larger effect on AAPL's share price than all the option traders and market makers combined.
|
|
|
Post by dreamRaj on Jan 8, 2014 16:53:40 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by VicaVale on Jan 8, 2014 17:01:01 GMT -8
First off, ignore all the details in that article on how prices reacted, they're all irrelevant because it's comparing today vs Tuesday when the date was announced Monday evening. The article should've been written yesterday and used Monday's vol pricing as its comparison. As of the end of December, the implied vol on all the January expirations were pointing pretty solidly (i.e. close to 100% chance) to a release during the week of the 24th (meaning the 5 days prior to the 24th). Over the first few days of January, the implied vol on the 24th options started to drop little by little, and at the end of the day Monday, it was implying about a 50% chance of being that week and a 50% chance of being the following week (Jan 31st). As soon as it was announced and the options opened for trading on Tuesday, the vol on the 24th lost all of its earnings premium and its vol came down roughly in line with the week of Jan 18th. Had someone known that the earnings were going to be the week of the 31st, it would've been extremely easy to make a killing with very little risk. All someone would have to do is short a ton of at-the-money options for the 24th, and buy an equal amount for the 31st. This would put a time spread on and would be a huge winner once the 24th vol dropped. The time spread would leave you short some gamma and long some theta, so to hedge that you'd add a few extra at-the-money straddles to give you some gamma at the expense of some theta. The end result of that position would be extremely hedged. The risk would be if the vol on the 24th spiked (or vol on 31st dropped) and the reward would be if the vol on the 24th dropped (or 31st spiked). Any movement of AAPL itself wouldn't matter because the position is hedged. We know now when the date was announced, the vol on the 24th dropped a ton. But it also started moving to the halfway point in the week prior to this Monday. So I think it's safe to say people were putting on that trade over the past week, and that's what started the sell-off in 24th vol leading up to the actual announcement. Those people ending up being right and I'm sure profited nicely. This is just one example of how people may put on extremely large option positions without caring at all about AAPL's price movement. It's important to remember because so much of the volume and open interest you see is 100% hedged. It's why I think many on this board are greatly exaggerating the effect that option trading has on the underlying share price. It's just my opinion, but it's the Icahns of the world and when they get in and out of a $2B position that has a much larger effect on AAPL's share price than all the option traders and market makers combined. mCharliem, I've noticed some huge positions yesterday and today in the AAPL July 700 and 750 call and put options. The calls are being sold-to-open and the puts are being bought-to-open. This seems very bearish. How would you interpret this?
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Jan 8, 2014 17:44:24 GMT -8
Question for mcharliem: How do you know that the sale of calls are opening positions and the puts being purchased are opening? Where is that designated?
|
|
|
Post by mcharliem on Jan 8, 2014 18:04:14 GMT -8
Question for mcharliem: How do you know that the sale of calls are opening positions and the puts being purchased are opening? Where is that designated? You can't really know for sure, but you can look at day over day changes in open interest. For any 1 contract represented in volume, it'll have one of three effects on OI: +1, no change, or -1. If both the buyer and seller of the option are opening, OI will go up by 1. If both are closing, OI will go down by 1. And if one is opening and the other is closing, then OI won't change. In cases of no change, it's impossible to tell if the buyer (or seller) is the one opening or closing, unless you know someone who was part of the trade. With those July trades, I wouldn't think much of it. If someone is selling calls and buying puts, it's 99% assured that they are buying an equivalent amount of stock to offset those options. That's just a conversion with a $50 spread on the strikes. It has a pretty small delta and doesn't represent a strong bearish (or bullish) bias.
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,189
|
Post by JDSoCal on Jan 8, 2014 18:39:03 GMT -8
Had someone known that the earnings were going to be the week of the 31st, it would've been extremely easy to make a killing with very little risk. All someone would have to do is short a ton of at-the-money options for the 24th, and buy an equal amount for the 31st. This would put a time spread on and would be a huge winner once the 24th vol dropped. The time spread would leave you short some gamma and long some theta, so to hedge that you'd add a few extra at-the-money straddles to give you some gamma at the expense of some theta. The end result of that position would be extremely hedged. The risk would be if the vol on the 24th spiked (or vol on 31st dropped) and the reward would be if the vol on the 24th dropped (or 31st spiked). Any movement of AAPL itself wouldn't matter because the position is hedged. We know now when the date was announced, the vol on the 24th dropped a ton. But it also started moving to the halfway point in the week prior to this Monday. So I think it's safe to say people were putting on that trade over the past week, and that's what started the sell-off in 24th vol leading up to the actual announcement. Those people ending up being right and I'm sure profited nicely. And what happened to the vol on the 31's? Was it an identical spike to the 24's drop, as one would expect?
|
|
|
Post by mcharliem on Jan 8, 2014 18:56:16 GMT -8
Had someone known that the earnings were going to be the week of the 31st, it would've been extremely easy to make a killing with very little risk. All someone would have to do is short a ton of at-the-money options for the 24th, and buy an equal amount for the 31st. This would put a time spread on and would be a huge winner once the 24th vol dropped. The time spread would leave you short some gamma and long some theta, so to hedge that you'd add a few extra at-the-money straddles to give you some gamma at the expense of some theta. The end result of that position would be extremely hedged. The risk would be if the vol on the 24th spiked (or vol on 31st dropped) and the reward would be if the vol on the 24th dropped (or 31st spiked). Any movement of AAPL itself wouldn't matter because the position is hedged. We know now when the date was announced, the vol on the 24th dropped a ton. But it also started moving to the halfway point in the week prior to this Monday. So I think it's safe to say people were putting on that trade over the past week, and that's what started the sell-off in 24th vol leading up to the actual announcement. Those people ending up being right and I'm sure profited nicely. And what happened to the vol on the 31's? Was it an identical spike to the 24's drop, as one would expect? No, the vol on the 31st didn't move. Regardless of whether the earnings took place right before or over a week before doesn't really matter. All that matters is whether it's before or after the expiration in question.
|
|
|
Post by qualitywte on Jan 8, 2014 19:14:40 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2014 21:00:14 GMT -8
The KEY to AAPL going up from here is institutional ownership.
Anyone have insight as to why Apple has only 61% institutional ownership why Google is at 87%? (this corresponds, unsurprisingly, with regional concentration, comprised of North American firms: Apple is at 48% and Google is at 71%).
Does Google's investor relations do a better job with institutional marketing? What form does this take? Does Eric T. Mole call anyone who'll listen that 99% of all TVs next year will run Android (don't laugh, he's promised something similar a couple of years ago).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2014 22:05:41 GMT -8
The KEY to AAPL going up from here is institutional ownership. Anyone have insight as to why Apple has only 61% institutional ownership why Google is at 87%? (this corresponds, unsurprisingly, with regional concentration, comprised of North American firms: Apple is at 48% and Google is at 71%). Does Google's investor relations do a better job with institutional marketing? What form does this take? Does Eric T. Mole call anyone who'll listen that 99% of all TVs next year will run Android (don't laugh, he's promised something similar a couple of years ago). Im picking Apples 61% still represents more total institutional cash than 87% of Google?
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on Jan 9, 2014 3:35:37 GMT -8
I ask myself WHY Apple is not in EVERY car? Is this the reason? For nearly a decade, makers of devices that plug into Apple's proprietary ports -- FireWire, 30-pin dock, 4-conductor iPhone connectors, Lightning, etc. -- grudgingly paid up to a 10% royalty (since reduced to $4 per connector) to Apple for the right to carry Cupertino's "Made-for..." logos.tech.fortune.cnn.com/2014/01/08/apple-ac-haier-mfi/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2014 5:30:26 GMT -8
The KEY to AAPL going up from here is institutional ownership. Anyone have insight as to why Apple has only 61% institutional ownership why Google is at 87%? (this corresponds, unsurprisingly, with regional concentration, comprised of North American firms: Apple is at 48% and Google is at 71%). Does Google's investor relations do a better job with institutional marketing? What form does this take? Does Eric T. Mole call anyone who'll listen that 99% of all TVs next year will run Android (don't laugh, he's promised something similar a couple of years ago). Im picking Apples 61% still represents more total institutional cash than 87% of Google? It's close at today's share count and stock price. Apple's low institutional ownership explains Apple's volatility when so many shares are in the hands of retail. It's not doing us any good. And yet, Apple pays out dividends while Google pays nothing.
|
|