KCInvestor

Apple and Intel Fail to Impress: Waiting for the Fed's Next Move

Oops, you pissed off the AAPL lovers. Commenters: Give me a break --- why are you wasting your time defending the stock --- just shut up and go buy more of it. Everyone can have their opinion, and if the writer was disappointed with Macworld, so be it --- that doesn't make them ignorant or an idiot. In fact, AAPL needs more coverage by people who address its downside risks, because sorry folks, they do exist. Long-term, sure it will likely go higher, but that doesn't mean it can't get crushed come Tuesday (my money is to the long side before you bash me).

It's also interesting how so many commenters can be so critical of one's grammar, yet they themselves have so many typos in the same sentence..."LEARN OUT TO WRITE". Seriously?

Just because you've looked up how much their sales have grown year over year, or notice that a product "seems" to be a success doesn't make you an analyst or a stock guru. This company could have negative returns in 2008 --- does anyone realize this? I wouldn't bet on that myself, but the complete lack of acknowledgement that this is a possibility is both mind-boggling and dangerous.

SA should refuse articles on AAPL altogether if this BS is going to continue.

The Tellurium Supernova

I am a chemical engineer and am happy to admit I know absolutely nothing about Te. However - either way you look at this trade, going long or short here, is very speculative. All I can say is that if you think there demise will be in a few years, why not wait to short it until there is some sign of this. They won't collapse overnight, and you would likely still have time to build a large short position. For the time, being the trend might be your friend, although I happen to think all solar stocks are long over-due for a correction, hence why I sold my FSLR position after a big run up back at 165. Don't you think a company of this size would have researched the availablility of their supply chain before investing hundreds of millions of dollars in a business on which it completely relies? While I unequivocably can not dispute the facts/opinions of either argument, I just find it all very hard to believe. But, I suppose Wall Street doesn't have a whole lot of physicists on the payroll either. Again, too speculative either way...