Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on Jan 6, 2015 3:57:22 GMT -8
Good morning everyone. Alright, we've got some GREEN this morning with AAPL trading at 106.49 +0.24 (0.23%) at 6:26. Major indices are GREEN as well, but not by as much. Guess that makes Apple the leader... In the news: For those who missed it yesterday, Apple earnings are on the 27th. Three weeks from today. What would the morning be without some FUD? Digitimes via Cult of Android provide our morning fix with Xiaomi sold a whopping 61.5 million phones in 2014. Apple is began selling unlocked iPhones yesterday. I would take that as an indication of supply and demand balance... Have a great day. Let's make money.
|
|
|
Post by chasmac on Jan 6, 2015 4:31:55 GMT -8
Think it's interesting to look at the chart in Dec-Feb for the last few years. A mixed bag for sure but it's possible that we continue to drop. We almost have bounces after days like yesterday it seems when everything is down. Best of luck.
On a side note, got up in the wee hours to watch the SpaceX launch (launch and then land rocket on platform in water). Aborted and rescheduled for this Friday. Might want to check it out.
|
|
Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on Jan 6, 2015 5:47:37 GMT -8
The major indices have turned RED, but AAPL is still GREEN. Can AAPL lead the market out of the doldrums?
|
|
|
Post by macwire on Jan 6, 2015 7:02:29 GMT -8
60' RSI diverging slightly...watching.
|
|
|
Post by Red Shirted Ensign on Jan 6, 2015 7:17:46 GMT -8
Double bounce off 105.50
I nibbled
|
|
|
Post by macwire on Jan 6, 2015 7:28:15 GMT -8
Hammer on the hourly on a possible double bottom. Circa 106.
|
|
|
Post by macwire on Jan 6, 2015 8:04:02 GMT -8
Well that was quick.
|
|
|
Post by archibaldtuttle on Jan 6, 2015 8:04:44 GMT -8
"This is not the bounce we're looking for."
|
|
|
Post by archibaldtuttle on Jan 6, 2015 8:16:01 GMT -8
I honestly don't mean to start a political debate. But there's something I don't understand. Everyone is saying that this market turmoil is being caused by the drop in oil price, due in some significant part to increases in supply.
But wasn't that "Drill Baby Drill" a significant side of the debate from just a few years ago? That we needed easing of regulation so that more and more domestic supply could be created? Why would this policy be advocated if there was a chance oversupply could lead to economic turmoil? Or did no one see this coming?
|
|
|
Post by gtrplyr on Jan 6, 2015 8:17:47 GMT -8
Oil freaking the market out again .... sorry but I don't see anything but a positive for companies like Apple when the consumer has more disposable income in their pocket from lower gas prices. If I had any money I'd put it to work right now in AAPL ... already 100% in. Hopefully Tim is using some of the money they just made during the last quarter and buying shares.
Cheers to the longs ....
|
|
|
Post by nathanstevens on Jan 6, 2015 9:01:17 GMT -8
104.63 was pretty stinking close to 104.57 target.
|
|
|
Post by nagrani on Jan 6, 2015 9:04:08 GMT -8
104.63 was pretty stinking close to 104.57 target. What does 104.57 represent?
|
|
|
Post by macwire on Jan 6, 2015 9:06:46 GMT -8
I honestly don't mean to start a political debate. But there's something I don't understand. Everyone is saying that this market turmoil is being caused by the drop in oil price, due in some significant part to increases in supply. But wasn't that "Drill Baby Drill" a significant side of the debate from just a few years ago? That we needed easing of regulation so that more and more domestic supply could be created? Why would this policy be advocated if there was a chance oversupply could lead to economic turmoil? Or did no one see this coming? Domestic oil production is not the reason for oversupply. It's a small if not negligible part of oversupply.
|
|
|
Post by archibaldtuttle on Jan 6, 2015 9:09:03 GMT -8
I honestly don't mean to start a political debate. But there's something I don't understand. Everyone is saying that this market turmoil is being caused by the drop in oil price, due in some significant part to increases in supply. But wasn't that "Drill Baby Drill" a significant side of the debate from just a few years ago? That we needed easing of regulation so that more and more domestic supply could be created? Why would this policy be advocated if there was a chance oversupply could lead to economic turmoil? Or did no one see this coming? Domestic oil production is not the reason for oversupply. It's a small if not negligible part of oversupply. Ok, but why would policies that further increase domestic supply be beneficial?
|
|
|
Post by nathanstevens on Jan 6, 2015 9:22:21 GMT -8
104.63 was pretty stinking close to 104.57 target. What does 104.57 represent? 61.8% retrace of the move from 95.18 to 119.75. Also, within spitting distance of the trend line from the 73 area to that 95.18 low.
|
|
|
Post by macwire on Jan 6, 2015 9:26:06 GMT -8
Domestic oil production is not the reason for oversupply. It's a small if not negligible part of oversupply. Ok, but why would policies that further increase domestic supply be beneficial? It creates jobs in the USA. It's a popular rallying point even if it has no impact on global oil prices. So politically its a very popular viewpoint to support.
|
|
|
Post by Odd-Lot Richard on Jan 6, 2015 9:26:31 GMT -8
I honestly don't mean to start a political debate. But there's something I don't understand. Everyone is saying that this market turmoil is being caused by the drop in oil price, due in some significant part to increases in supply. But wasn't that "Drill Baby Drill" a significant side of the debate from just a few years ago? That we needed easing of regulation so that more and more domestic supply could be created? Why would this policy be advocated if there was a chance oversupply could lead to economic turmoil? Or did no one see this coming? Drilling and laying down pipeline would create jobs for Americans, and a high supply in-country would reduce dependence on foreign producers. An oil glut would be a net positive for the economy, and still is. The issue is whether the glut is due to low demand or high supply. If it is due to low demand, then the economy is in trouble, because people need oil for so many things, and only cut usage if prices are too high—sometimes not even then, if you remember the Seventies—or they're not transacting. If there is a glut, then producers ought to cut back, because it's in their interest to do so—maintaining the balance of high prices an adequate demand keeps the oligarchs and princes and dictators rolling in cash. However, OPEC has started a Cold War game of brinkmanship with the North Dakota and Pennsylvania frackers. Energy independence is no good for them, so they are flooding the market with oil, hoping to put these rivals out of business. The market though may be having a hard time interpreting these signals. If there is a glut due to low demand, then no one is using oil because there's no demand and thus the economy is shrinking. No one wants to be in the market if the economy is shrinking. If the glut is due to high supply, but is also disguising some demand-side issues—we know Europe and Chinese demand is softer recently—then participants will still want to hedge their exposure. Having numerous domestic oil sources should be a priority, even if we don't use it—it gives the US leverage in dealing with OPEC and Russia.
|
|
|
Post by Odd-Lot Richard on Jan 6, 2015 9:30:27 GMT -8
Or what macwire said.
Tuttle, I take you at your word that you're not trying to start some political wrangle here.
|
|
|
Post by archibaldtuttle on Jan 6, 2015 9:33:00 GMT -8
Or what macwire said. Tuttle, I take you at your word that you're not trying to start some political wrangle here. That helps explain, thanks guys. Basically it seems like it's good policy to have more domestic production instead of importing oil, no one could have foreseen the Saudi price war, and these low oil prices shouldn't be tanking the economy they should help the economy, except that Mr Market is a chicken little. Did I get that?
|
|
|
Post by macwire on Jan 6, 2015 9:36:18 GMT -8
However, OPEC has started a Cold War game of brinkmanship with the North Dakota and Pennsylvania frackers. Energy independence is no good for them, so they are flooding the market with oil, hoping to put these rivals out of business. The market though may be having a hard time interpreting these signals. If there is a glut due to low demand, then no one is using oil because there's no demand and thus the economy is shrinking. No one wants to be in the market if the economy is shrinking. If the glut is due to high supply, but is also disguising some demand-side issues—we know Europe and Chinese demand is softer recently—then participants will still want to hedge their exposure. Having numerous domestic oil sources should be a priority, even if we don't use it—it gives the US leverage in dealing with OPEC and Russia. With who? Frackers? No. Not at all. This is a oil war not with small potatoes frackers. It's about Iran Russia and Venezuela...and a proxy war in Syria.
|
|
|
Post by macwire on Jan 6, 2015 9:40:29 GMT -8
Or what macwire said. Tuttle, I take you at your word that you're not trying to start some political wrangle here. That helps explain, thanks guys. Basically it seems like it's good policy to have more domestic production instead of importing oil, no one could have foreseen the Saudi price war, and these low oil prices shouldn't be tanking the economy they should help the economy, except that Mr Market is a chicken little. Did I get that? The oil war was foreseen IMO once SA and Russia Iran started lining up on opposite sides in Syria...
|
|
|
Post by Odd-Lot Richard on Jan 6, 2015 9:42:07 GMT -8
Or what macwire said. Tuttle, I take you at your word that you're not trying to start some political wrangle here. That helps explain, thanks guys. Basically it seems like it's good policy to have more domestic production instead of importing oil, no one could have foreseen the Saudi price war, and these low oil prices shouldn't be tanking the economy they should help the economy, except that Mr Market is a chicken little. Did I get that? Pretty much. Low oil prices, as the biggest joule for the lowest buck, would only tank the energy sector. It's a net positive for almost every other sector, which rely on energy to some extent, if only to get products from one place to another. Oil prices have been such a reliable indicator for overall demand though, that the market is having a hard time interpreting how soft the demand is in the economy as a whole. It's the uncertainty that's causing the market gyrations, not oil prices themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Odd-Lot Richard on Jan 6, 2015 9:43:38 GMT -8
macwire, I acknowledge that in this point I was speaking outside my geopolitical circle of competence, such as it is.
|
|
|
Post by macwire on Jan 6, 2015 9:48:44 GMT -8
macwire, I acknowledge that in this point I was speaking outside my geopolitical circle of competence, such as it is. All good. That is a part of it I suppose. The thing with our frackers is they shut off ops. Turn em back on when its advantageous. Places like Iran and Russia can't. They depend on the dollars coming in for that oil extraction. Even if it's 1/2 of what they expect. Which then plays into the glut and into OPECs hands essentially.
|
|
|
Post by macwire on Jan 6, 2015 9:51:38 GMT -8
That helps explain, thanks guys. Basically it seems like it's good policy to have more domestic production instead of importing oil, no one could have foreseen the Saudi price war, and these low oil prices shouldn't be tanking the economy they should help the economy, except that Mr Market is a chicken little. Did I get that? Pretty much. Low oil prices, as the biggest joule for the lowest buck, would only tank the energy sector. It's a net positive for almost every other sector, which rely on energy to some extent, if only to get products from one place to another. Oil prices have been such a reliable indicator for overall demand though, that the market is having a hard time interpreting how soft the demand is in the economy as a whole. It's the uncertainty that's causing the market gyrations, not oil prices themselves. Correct people are continuing to essentially gauge the potential recession emerging in Europe No indication of slowing growth in the USA as evidenced by our recent GDP revision (let's leave out the real economy improving debate which is definitely arguably not all improved or essentially flat from last few years) And of course slowing growth out of China. But it seems that the PROC is primed to grease the economic pump if necessary so I think the worries from China are overblown.
|
|
|
Post by Luckychoices on Jan 6, 2015 9:52:16 GMT -8
If I had any money I'd put it to work right now in AAPL ... already 100% in. Cheers to the longs .... Are you saying, gtrplyr, that all your "extra money" is already invested, or that Apple is your only investment? Just curious because so many columns by financial advisors (all geniuses) warn against the lack of diversity in one's investments. My wife and I have found a complete lack of diversity to be profitable by investing 100% in AAPL over the last 15 years and I wonder how many others have done the same thing. In any case, I wholeheartedly agree with your comment, "Cheers to the longs!".
|
|
|
Post by firestorm on Jan 6, 2015 9:56:59 GMT -8
One theory is that Obama has an agreement with the Saudis to continue pumping at high volume, in order to drive down the price so that the economies of Russia and Iran will suffer. If so, it's a helluva chess move. Though it is also causing my personal economy to suffer, since the reduced price of gas has only saved me about .1% of the drop I've endured in AAPL.
|
|
|
Post by firestorm on Jan 6, 2015 10:03:52 GMT -8
If I had any money I'd put it to work right now in AAPL ... already 100% in. Cheers to the longs .... Are you saying, gtrplyr, that all your "extra money" is already invested, or that Apple is your only investment? Just curious because so many columns by financial advisors (all geniuses) warn against the lack of diversity in one's investments. My wife and I have found a complete lack of diversity to be profitable by investing 100% in AAPL over the last 15 years and I wonder how many others have done the same thing. In any case, I wholeheartedly agree with your comment, "Cheers to the longs!". I've mostly done the same thing, and it paid off handsomely for me. Though it has been nerve-wracking at times. It helped that I couldn't easily diversify into all the tech stocks I wanted, because the law firm my wife worked for represented Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and many of the other big names, and I would have had to get special permission every time I wanted to buy or sell one of those stocks. Apple was not one of the companies represented by that firm.
|
|
|
Post by rezonate on Jan 6, 2015 10:06:24 GMT -8
Sorry folks, been out working on the book project. Is this really a dip or more like a slow melt down?
Any CES news? I hope to see Apple adopt a color e-ink screen in a tablet device this year. (ducks)
|
|
|
Post by nwjade on Jan 6, 2015 10:37:10 GMT -8
Are you saying, gtrplyr, that all your "extra money" is already invested, or that Apple is your only investment? Just curious because so many columns by financial advisors (all geniuses) warn against the lack of diversity in one's investments. My wife and I have found a complete lack of diversity to be profitable by investing 100% in AAPL over the last 15 years and I wonder how many others have done the same thing. In any case, I wholeheartedly agree with your comment, "Cheers to the longs!". I've mostly done the same thing, and it paid off handsomely for me. Though it has been nerve-wracking at times. It helped that I couldn't easily diversify into all the tech stocks I wanted, because the law firm my wife worked for represented Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and many of the other big names, and I would have had to get special permission every time I wanted to buy or sell one of those stocks. Apple was not one of the companies represented by that firm. Ditto mostly the same thing with me. My IRA has been 100% AAPL since November 2006 but I couldn't invest in any AAPL in my 401K. In 2013 I retired and was able to roll the 401K to my IRA at an opportune time that allowed purchasing more AAPL at $63.00 per share and been 100% AAPL ever since. It does fly in the face of conventional investing advice but it's all common shares so I can ride the ups and downs all the while collecting the divvy. I'm good with that.
|
|