I think a cautious sentiment is warranted. But I think earnings will show they are not done yet. The stock can make some pretty drastic moves from here -- up or down -- but the company is solid. That doesn't mean they will always be where they are now, but in the near term I think further earnings growth is very likely. Anyone afraid of 4% swings in both directions should find a quieter stock.
Why I Am Content That I Sold Apple And Gave Up Trading [View article]
That's a tautology. The odds favor anyone who has an "edge". Certainly more people think they have an edge than actually do or the odds would favor more day traders. I doubt few people go into it thinking they will be one of the failures.
Why I Am Content That I Sold Apple And Gave Up Trading [View article]
You guys are talking past each other. One person is defining luck as the deviation from statistical probability and the other is talking of luck in terms of chance events. Both are valid uses of the term from what I can tell. Luck is chance itself. Or you could think of luck as being responsible for why you wouldn't win 7 times out of 10 when you should have a 70% chance. In this sense, the more attempts, the less "luck" comes into play. But I can also see the idea that anything not 100% certain is in some sense up to "luck".
It doesn't matter. A skilled day trader will do better than one relying on blind luck. But even the articles says "the odds are stacked against" the day trader.
Microsoft Now A Better Bet Than Apple? [View article]
If I were a leader at any large tech company like Google, Apple, or Microsoft I would want my executives using the competitors' products at least some of the time. How else would you really see where your products can be improved? How else would you keep from developing tunnel vision about your own product? It is no accident that Microsoft is insular and sluggish. They have a history of assuming that their way is best "because they say so". This is how they got caught from behind. And this is why I have no faith that they will ever recapture the magic of their youth. I am worried enough about Apple retaining its vision. Imagine how hard it must be for a large company to recapture its vision.
I think MSFT is a good stable stock. You will probably not lose a lot of money investing in MSFT and you're likely to come out a fair bit ahead in ten years counting dividends. But I wouldn't look to this stock as being a breakout money maker. I just think its joints are too creaky and old to ever slam dunk again.
The Fallen King: Apple Outships Research In Motion In Canada For The First Time [View article]
Of course you are right that anyone has a right to an opinion, even an ill informed one. What was funny about the comments that I am referring to are that the commenter would often post "That's a fact" after some clearly hypothetical scenario. It made for interesting theater. As for example the claim that Apple would be 300 by the summer of 2012 (and "that's a fact"). It is maddening when people's emotions make them so blind that they can't accept that their world view is out of touch with reality. I try not to use absolutes. I have been surprised by the market before and I'm sure I will be again. I agree that people should accept the opinions of others without feeling threatened by them. Too bad so many people are on their own private crusades.
The Fallen King: Apple Outships Research In Motion In Canada For The First Time [View article]
Slebb you'd be surprised at the lack of shame many Seeking Alpha posters have. There is one guy who keeps creating new accounts and comes back each month with a new identity talking about how AAPL is going down the tubes. Blair Crow, for example, said it was going to 300 in 2012. I wonder where he is now. Posting with some other name no doubt. Some people have no shame.
But I don't understand all the fuss about RIM's future. They will either survive or they won't. No sense in arguing about it.
Why I Wouldn't Trade Apple Right Now [View article]
Bird-man, you are right if in fact the price rise and bullishness are now "excessive". Given how the stock has lagged earnings growth, it is not clear that we are into "excessive" valuations right now, though. AAPL could just stall out around 600 for a while, up a bit some days and down a bit others. There is no guarantee that this recent sharp run has set up a sharp decline. If the run up resumes at a good clip, then I would say it is time to start getting antsy. AAPL at 600 doesn't seem at all unreasonable, however.
"Remember, demand for Apple products cannot stagnate at this extremely high level in order for the stock to justify its price, it must continue to grow at a very fast pace."
Respectfully, I am not sure what this means. It is a value judgement that the current demand is already "extremely high". In relation to what? Market share? Market size? Total revenue? Yes, Apple has been selling a lot of products, but when viewed in relation to all the dollars being spent on tech products (PCs and cell phones as well as tablets), it does not seem that Apple demand is "extremely high".
But even more importantly, it is unclear what you mean by "continue to grow at a very fast pace". Do you mean that they must achieve their historical growth levels? Because no one expects them to do this and the stock would be ridiculously underpriced if they did. So do you mean 20%? 10%? While this could be considered robust growth it is actually an extreme deceleration of growth for Apple. What if they continued to grow at 20% -- much slower than they have been but still good growth? That would mean EPS of 45, 54, 65 and 78 in years '12,'13,'14, and 2015. EPS of 78 would suggest a price of over 900 at just a PE of 12. Clearly this is more than needed to justify its CURRENT price.
So let's assume they grow at 10% for three years and then stop and the PE is 11 (less than MSFT) because they have upped their dividend to 2.5% by then (they surely could). Then you have earnings of 45, 49.5, 54, and finally 59 in 2015. At PE 11 the price would be 649. So what this suggests is in order for Apple to justify its stock price it must grow by about 10%. Is that what you meant by "very fast pace"? It is unclear from your comment.
Feel free to assign your own "very fast pace" so that someone can do the math on valuation at the new EPS.
If you are calling anyone who ever sold a share of stock a "trader", then I disagree with your assessment that very few traders are successful. Your dividend bias is clear, but I have never seen it taken to such logical extreme. So anyone who bought Berkshire Hathaway in 1962 and sold in 2010 was just a trader with lucky timing?
If you were bound by some restriction to never sell a share of stock, evaluating your holding on the basis of what they pay you would be the only valid way of evaluating your portfolio. Since that is not the case, the market value of your shares is relevant. If your approach to dividend investing is working for you, that is great. But to assume that shares have no value simply because you do not want to sell any is folly.
"How many attend the Annual Shareholder's Meeting?
A responsibility which should be made mandatory for all Shareholders, you don't show, your shares are cashed out.
If you can't afford to take time off, and fly in for the meeting, you have just outed yourself as someone who should not be involved in the market, because you cannot afford to be, and are living above your means. With speculation comes great responsibility."
I suspect you are aware of how silly this comment is, so I won't bother trying to point out its flaws.
Why It's Time To Short Apple [View article]
Why I Would Not Touch Apple Ahead Of Earnings [View article]
Why I Am Content That I Sold Apple And Gave Up Trading [View article]
Why I Am Content That I Sold Apple And Gave Up Trading [View article]
It doesn't matter. A skilled day trader will do better than one relying on blind luck. But even the articles says "the odds are stacked against" the day trader.
Microsoft Now A Better Bet Than Apple? [View article]
I think MSFT is a good stable stock. You will probably not lose a lot of money investing in MSFT and you're likely to come out a fair bit ahead in ten years counting dividends. But I wouldn't look to this stock as being a breakout money maker. I just think its joints are too creaky and old to ever slam dunk again.
Crock Pot Trades: Playing Apple With Weekly Options [View article]
The Fallen King: Apple Outships Research In Motion In Canada For The First Time [View article]
The Fallen King: Apple Outships Research In Motion In Canada For The First Time [View article]
The Fallen King: Apple Outships Research In Motion In Canada For The First Time [View article]
But I don't understand all the fuss about RIM's future. They will either survive or they won't. No sense in arguing about it.
Why I Wouldn't Trade Apple Right Now [View article]
Apple Momentum Waning [View article]
Respectfully, I am not sure what this means. It is a value judgement that the current demand is already "extremely high". In relation to what? Market share? Market size? Total revenue? Yes, Apple has been selling a lot of products, but when viewed in relation to all the dollars being spent on tech products (PCs and cell phones as well as tablets), it does not seem that Apple demand is "extremely high".
But even more importantly, it is unclear what you mean by "continue to grow at a very fast pace". Do you mean that they must achieve their historical growth levels? Because no one expects them to do this and the stock would be ridiculously underpriced if they did. So do you mean 20%? 10%? While this could be considered robust growth it is actually an extreme deceleration of growth for Apple. What if they continued to grow at 20% -- much slower than they have been but still good growth? That would mean EPS of 45, 54, 65 and 78 in years '12,'13,'14, and 2015. EPS of 78 would suggest a price of over 900 at just a PE of 12. Clearly this is more than needed to justify its CURRENT price.
So let's assume they grow at 10% for three years and then stop and the PE is 11 (less than MSFT) because they have upped their dividend to 2.5% by then (they surely could). Then you have earnings of 45, 49.5, 54, and finally 59 in 2015. At PE 11 the price would be 649. So what this suggests is in order for Apple to justify its stock price it must grow by about 10%. Is that what you meant by "very fast pace"? It is unclear from your comment.
Feel free to assign your own "very fast pace" so that someone can do the math on valuation at the new EPS.
Apple's Sensible Dividend [View article]
Apple's Sensible Dividend [View article]
Apple's Sensible Dividend [View article]
Apple's Sensible Dividend [View article]
A responsibility which should be made mandatory for all Shareholders, you don't show, your shares are cashed out.
If you can't afford to take time off, and fly in for the meeting, you have just outed yourself as someone who should not be involved in the market, because you cannot afford to be, and are living above your means. With speculation comes great responsibility."
I suspect you are aware of how silly this comment is, so I won't bother trying to point out its flaws.