Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on Dec 16, 2014 3:43:43 GMT -8
Good morning everyone. I see AAPL is RED, trading at 108.05 -0.17 (0.16%) as of 6:41. Meanwhile, the major indices are all GREEN. A bit over 10% off the high, we're about due for a reversal. I intend to start buying this week once I get a better feel. I was afraid I'd miss this dip. In the news: Looks like the e-books antitrust trial is going Apples way. Stories in the WSJ [$], Reuters and MacDailyNews. Nice to see the Justice Department being questioned... Over in the iPod case, Former Apple engineer describes 'secret war' with opponents of copy protection. WSJ also reports that Bankruptcy Court Approves GT Advanced Settlement With Apple. You know, if this continues we'll have to rename this the AAPL Legal Board... Still catching up. Thanks Phoebe and everyone else who helped fill in. Have a great day. Let's make money.
|
|
|
Post by rickag on Dec 16, 2014 4:31:04 GMT -8
Down $1.72 in pre-market, this is getting very disturbing.
|
|
Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on Dec 16, 2014 4:56:29 GMT -8
It is disturbing.
The trouble with 'Buying the Dip' is that's is also known as 'Catching a Falling Knife'. I'm cautiously optimistic and looking for an entry point.
I do not expect to see prices below $100 -- but I've been wrong before.
|
|
|
Post by PikesPique on Dec 16, 2014 6:26:31 GMT -8
If the trend continues, I'll be put a lot of shares at 105 at the end of the week. I just hope we aren't too far below that price when it happens. I'll turn around and sell calls against those shares next week.
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Dec 16, 2014 7:28:26 GMT -8
As of right now Max Pain is $110 for Friday but it's only Tuesday so not a very helpful guide at this point.
|
|
Ted
fire starter
Posts: 882
|
Post by Ted on Dec 16, 2014 7:55:28 GMT -8
GOOG down to 505. AMZN below 300. TSLA below 200. AAPL only off .03%. Things could be worse. My guess: I think the bleeding will stop this week. Chevron seems to have bottomed and is heading back up as well as other oilers.
|
|
|
Post by gtrplyr on Dec 16, 2014 8:03:20 GMT -8
Not worried at all. If I had any dry powder I'd use it .... someone with money and a 18month horizon could make a killing right now .
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Dec 16, 2014 8:32:28 GMT -8
EDIT: Never mind
|
|
|
Post by mrentropy on Dec 16, 2014 8:35:23 GMT -8
Back above the 50sma and the lower bolly I believe. If we hold this, historically it has taken us to the upper part of the Bollinger band
|
|
|
Post by macwire on Dec 16, 2014 8:47:26 GMT -8
Lets take back that 10 day next! Lots time left in today's session tho. Historically December bearish seasonality ended dec 15th.
|
|
|
Post by incorrigible on Dec 16, 2014 8:57:54 GMT -8
Crazy day.
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,189
|
Post by JDSoCal on Dec 16, 2014 8:59:00 GMT -8
Lawdy, I've heard less whimpering during a prison rape. Buck up people!
|
|
|
Post by Red Shirted Ensign on Dec 16, 2014 9:13:15 GMT -8
Lawdy, I've heard less whimpering during a prison rape. Buck up people! Someday you will have to share with us the background to all these personal experiences you describe... As for AAPL, whether its this week or next, the basics underlying the upcoming quarter's financials (Pow!) and the new product rollouts can't be ignored for much longer. The first two Apple Watches will be presented tonight to the president of our company and his wife as our holiday gift to them. Actually, we are giving them hospital admittance bands with an Apple logo on them as placeholders until we can buy them the real thing early next year.
|
|
|
Post by macwire on Dec 16, 2014 9:54:23 GMT -8
General market already gave up half its gains in span of 45 minutes.
|
|
|
Post by CdnPhoto on Dec 16, 2014 10:13:06 GMT -8
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,189
|
Post by JDSoCal on Dec 16, 2014 11:41:07 GMT -8
Ha ha, suck it, class action leeches! I hope that defense verdict cost you parasites a fortune out of pocket.
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Dec 16, 2014 11:57:46 GMT -8
It would be great if Apple Litigators sued on behalf of Apple for legal fees. People would think twice of doing frivolous lawsuits if they thought it might come back to bite them in the ass.
|
|
|
Post by archibaldtuttle on Dec 16, 2014 12:40:28 GMT -8
Ugly day. Rejected at the 50 day and back below it and the lower B Band. Not giving Bulls much technical support in the short or intermediate term...
|
|
|
Post by macwire on Dec 16, 2014 12:45:22 GMT -8
Another absolutely brutalizing day. Woof.
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,189
|
Post by JDSoCal on Dec 16, 2014 13:21:37 GMT -8
It would be great if Apple Litigators sued on behalf of Apple for legal fees. People would think twice of doing frivolous lawsuits if they thought it might come back to bite them in the ass. Unfortunately, no. In order to recover legal fees, a plaintiff's action must have been deemed "frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation." This would typically involve the trial court disposing of the case in a pre-trial motion, not a case that was allowed to go to jury verdict. A judge allowing such a meritless case to go to jury would be legal error in itself. So yeah, unlikely. Sadly, in modern nanny state America, the presumption in such federal claims is that the "private attorney general" plaintiff is the good guy, and the defendant is the bad guy, and our legal system does not want to deter citizens from filing such suits to enforce public policy, out of fear of paying costs in a defense verdict. Of course, the bad guy is very often the class action bar enriching itself, with little disincentive to file questionable claims.
|
|
Ted
fire starter
Posts: 882
|
Post by Ted on Dec 16, 2014 13:24:05 GMT -8
Another absolutely brutalizing day. Woof. Yeh, that was a nauseating ride, but ultimately: AMZN -10.71, -3.5 % FB -2.30, -3.0 % GOOG -18.41, -3.58% MSFT -1.45, -3.1% TSLA -6.15, -3.0% PCLN -32.80, -3.0% AAPL -1.53, -1.42% Just sayin'... P.S. And nice to see our old friends amzn and goog get extra brutalized.
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Dec 16, 2014 13:40:08 GMT -8
It would be great if Apple Litigators sued on behalf of Apple for legal fees. People would think twice of doing frivolous lawsuits if they thought it might come back to bite them in the ass. Unfortunately, no. In order to recover legal fees, a plaintiff's action must have been deemed "frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation." This would typically involve the trial court disposing of the case in a pre-trial motion, not a case that was allowed to go to jury verdict. A judge allowing such a meritless case to go to jury would be legal error in itself. So yeah, unlikely. Sadly, in modern nanny state America, the presumption in such federal claims is that the "private attorney general" plaintiff is the good guy, and the defendant is the bad guy, and our legal system does not want to deter citizens from filing such suits to enforce public policy, out of fear of paying costs in a defense verdict. Of course, the bad guy is very often the class action bar enriching itself, with little disincentive to file questionable claims. When I was working for a finance firm I actually did this against a client and won the case and the Firm's legal fees but it was in arbitration so I guess that's what made the difference, correct?
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Dec 16, 2014 13:49:07 GMT -8
Well I guess CNBC isn't getting the ratings it wants - every night they are having some featured AAPL story on Fast Money. Yesterday was how Xiomi is a huge threat to them. Today they are focusing on all the exposure AAPL has to emerging markets and how this turmoil will affect them. I can't take it anymore. It's less painful to stick a pencil in my eye ball - they're killing me.
|
|
|
Post by tuffett on Dec 16, 2014 13:49:31 GMT -8
Starting to get at the levels where I'd be looking into some 2016/2017 bull call spreads for some nice returns in a year or two.
|
|
mark
fire starter
Posts: 1,575
|
Post by mark on Dec 16, 2014 13:53:56 GMT -8
Starting to get at the levels where I'd be looking into some 2016/2017 bull call spreads for some nice returns in a year or two. I added to my Jan 2017 bull call spread position today.
|
|
|
Post by redinaustin on Dec 16, 2014 14:29:02 GMT -8
Well I guess CNBC isn't getting the ratings it wants - every night they are having some featured AAPL story on Fast Money. Yesterday was how Xiomi is a huge threat to them. Today they are focusing on all the exposure AAPL has to emerging markets and how this turmoil will affect them. I can't take it anymore. It's less painful to stick a pencil in my eye ball - they're killing me. Turn off the TV. Turn on the music. There, next problem
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,189
|
Post by JDSoCal on Dec 16, 2014 16:12:13 GMT -8
Unfortunately, no. In order to recover legal fees, a plaintiff's action must have been deemed "frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation." This would typically involve the trial court disposing of the case in a pre-trial motion, not a case that was allowed to go to jury verdict. A judge allowing such a meritless case to go to jury would be legal error in itself. So yeah, unlikely. Sadly, in modern nanny state America, the presumption in such federal claims is that the "private attorney general" plaintiff is the good guy, and the defendant is the bad guy, and our legal system does not want to deter citizens from filing such suits to enforce public policy, out of fear of paying costs in a defense verdict. Of course, the bad guy is very often the class action bar enriching itself, with little disincentive to file questionable claims. When I was working for a finance firm I actually did this against a client and won the case and the Firm's legal fees but it was in arbitration so I guess that's what made the difference, correct? Depends on the cause of action, but yes, loser pays costs and fees is a standard clause in arbitration agreements (which is why a lot of companies, including consumer tech (e.g., Dell) have arbitration clauses in their purchase agreements, it's a huge deterrent to sue), and the Federal Arbitration Act strongly favors upholding arbitration agreements. Class action ban clauses are also generally upheld, even in antitrust actions (such a clause by Amex was upheld by SCOTUS last year). And a loser pays fees clause was upheld in an antitrust case in Delaware this year (there's a reason most corporations register in Delaware, friendly laws and a great Chancery Court, the last equity-only court left in the US AFAIK). As far as I know, Apple has chosen not to insert any arbitration clauses into its hardware and software agreements. I can only assume this is to be pro-customer and for PR reasons. It's likely why the US car manufacturers haven't tried it - they'd be skewered by their competitors and the trade mags and Consumer Reports. But had Apple done so, it is likely this case would have never seen the light of day, since the claim was worth about $4 per plaintiff at best. Interestingly, companies like Apple and Ford/GM/Chrysler forgoing arbitration clauses may be an example of free market competition actually being more pro-consumer than what the big nanny state - that loves passing laws, but hates giving you your day in court - requires. So what do you think peeps, should Apple insert an arbitration clause declaring loser pays into its hardware and software agreements? I vote "yes."
|
|
|
Post by phoebear611 on Dec 16, 2014 16:35:13 GMT -8
Yay from me!
|
|
|
Post by 2centsplus on Dec 16, 2014 17:50:54 GMT -8
Some people never know when to quit! You would think that my good fortune with the mortgage would be enough to have me just content to dive into the money room and do the backstroke, but I have another idea that I would like to throw out there for comments. Forgive me in advance for needing advice on such a simple strategy, but i really am a novice when it comes to options.
My faith in Apple is such that very little would make me ever sell the stock. I would ride it down to 50 again without even considering selling. I mention this because it is one of the key assumptions underlying what I want to do. Here is the scenario: Let's say that I have 10,000 shares and we are at 109. I want to sell 100 put contracts with a 100 strike that mature in January 16. If Apple takes off and hits 130, I will buy them back. If Apple heads south, I will sell my shares when Apple reaches the strike price of 100. Assume that Apple then drops to 80 and the buyer puts the shares to me. I take the money from the sale and buy the shares. I now own 10,000 shares at 80 each, just like I would have if I had passively held the shares. During the time that I am out of Apple, the receipt from the puts offsets the lost dividends. If Apple reaches the strike price and I sell and then Apple goes back up, I may have to buy back in slightly higher, but again the proceeds from the puts more than offset this loss.
Given the assumptions that I would be in Apple at 80 regardless, I cannot find the downside in this strategy. Someone with a clearer mind and sharper pencil, help. On the other hand, if it makes sense and works for you, Merry Christmas and you are welcome
Bud, this is in response to your post above. I always enjoy your posts because they make me think. I believe I read somewhere that the average investor who takes up options loses all of his or her money within two years, so these things probably are worth thinking hard about.
So say the morning after you sell the 100 puts, Apple opens down 50- 90% due to a nuclear war or China nationalizes its manufacturing or any other silly reason. If I have it figured right, your Apple stock is now comparatively worthless compared to what you owe on your puts, so you lose your house and may have to file for bankruptcy.
|
|
|
Post by 2centsplus on Dec 16, 2014 18:06:26 GMT -8
Some people never know when to quit! You would think that my good fortune with the mortgage would be enough to have me just content to dive into the money room and do the backstroke, but I have another idea that I would like to throw out there for comments. Forgive me in advance for needing advice on such a simple strategy, but i really am a novice when it comes to options. My faith in Apple is such that very little would make me ever sell the stock. I would ride it down to 50 again without even considering selling. I mention this because it is one of the key assumptions underlying what I want to do. Here is the scenario: Let's say that I have 10,000 shares and we are at 109. I want to sell 100 put contracts with a 100 strike that mature in January 16. If Apple takes off and hits 130, I will buy them back. If Apple heads south, I will sell my shares when Apple reaches the strike price of 100. Assume that Apple then drops to 80 and the buyer puts the shares to me. I take the money from the sale and buy the shares. I now own 10,000 shares at 80 each, just like I would have if I had passively held the shares. During the time that I am out of Apple, the receipt from the puts offsets the lost dividends. If Apple reaches the strike price and I sell and then Apple goes back up, I may have to buy back in slightly higher, but again the proceeds from the puts more than offset this loss. Given the assumptions that I would be in Apple at 80 regardless, I cannot find the downside in this strategy. Someone with a clearer mind and sharper pencil, help. On the other hand, if it makes sense and works for you, Merry Christmas and you are welcome Bud, this is in response to your post above. I always enjoy your posts because they make me think. I believe I read somewhere that the average investor who takes up options loses all of his or her money within two years, so these things probably are worth thinking hard about. So say the morning after you sell the 100 puts, Apple opens down 50- 90% due to a nuclear war or China nationalizes its manufacturing or any other silly reason. If I have it figured right, your Apple stock is now comparatively worthless compared to what you owe on your puts, so you lose your house and may have to file for bankruptcy. Well, 5 minutes later now I think I disagree with myself so someone else will have to figure it out.
|
|