Timeline Strategy Consulting

Preview from Europe: Stocks Shrug Off Yet More Dire Data

Author's quote: "Note that the NASDAQ is now back positive for the year to date with Google".

Roger, the gains are not measured from the year's low, they are measured year-to-date. That means from closing price on 31-Dec.

That was 85.35 for AAPL and 307.65 for GOOG.

So today, with another bit of gain, AAPL is at 20.4% YTD and GOOG is 23.4% YTD.

In any case, it's sloppy writing to not check your math, and I refuse to read further. If the entire pretext of the article is someone's opinion based upon their observation of numbers, and those numbers turn out to be incorrect, why should I believe anything the author says?

Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. There's enough rubbish about investing on the internet. Why should I waste time reading something that's verifiably wrong?

On Feb 09 11:51 AM Roger Knights wrote:

> "Apple is not +26%. If it were, it would trade at about $108."<br/>
>
> Its low was 79 and change, and its close on Friday was 99.75 or so.
> Rounding off to 80 &amp; 100 for simplicity, a 20-point rise from
> 80 to 100 is 25%. So I figure 26% is within the ballpark.

Preview from Europe: Stocks Shrug Off Yet More Dire Data

Google is not +54%.

If it were, it would trade at about $460.

Apple is not +26%.

If it were, it would trade at about $108.

They are both up in fact 20%, give or take a few.

Why should I read further into your article, which is opinion-based, when you have facts incorrect into the first 50 words? You should try harder.