Investors Should Keep Apple In Their Portfolios [View article]
Uo1bsb0 - Sadly many investors also hold on to losers long past the time when they should have dumped them. It's just really hard knowing which kind you are being at any particular time.
BlackBerry Vs. Apple: Which Is A Winning Bet For 2013? [View article]
Jelly Belly - I have no argument with you as I am a big supporter of BB10. I misread your comment as including ALL OSs not simply mobile smartphone OSs. There are many mobile OSs worse than iOS (though iOS is among the most dated of the mobile smartphone OSs that are currently popular in the western world). However, if I read your comment as being more general than you intended it, I apologize.
BlackBerry Vs. Apple: Which Is A Winning Bet For 2013? [View article]
Jelly Belly - Okay, I am a BB supporter but even I found that went too far. Apple developed an innovative hardware, software, ecosystem combination that has been very hard to beat. I still think they have some interesting and innovative products, but I have never been an admirer of the Apple approach. I happen to believe that the upside for BBRY is greater than for Apple but I really doubt it would win worst OS of all time as I'm sure there are many more-suitable candidates.
BlackBerry Vs. Apple: Which Is A Winning Bet For 2013? [View article]
It's hard to predict the future by looking only at the past. If it were easy, no one would have lost money on AAPL last year. Things change and sometimes you're on the right side of the change, sometimes the wrong side. It might be better to do a sensitivity analysis on the two stocks, i.e. what has to go right or wrong for each company to significantly change their valuation? At one time, everything you said about Apple today was true for RIM, then it wan't anymore. Try doing your evaluations with some instrument besides a straightedge.
In Defense Of Apple: Battling The Mounting Hysteria [View article]
harisbasit - "If it is not about margins, guidance or analyst forecasts then why did the stock price change so rapidly when these were announced?" Well they do matter, just not in any way that will necessarily make sense to you. Stocks often move up when they beat the street estimates not necessarily when they become more profitable or raise dividends. Fundamentals might matter, but not in any way that makes sense. If they did, we would all demand 5% dividends or more and not buy stock that is below that.
In Defense Of Apple: Battling The Mounting Hysteria [View article]
Probably the best AAPL investment commentary I've heard. For all you Apple-lovers who also happen to be RIMM bashers, this is what it felt like for those who thought RIMM was being unjustly and incorrectly undervalued. The (equities) world is neither fair nor nice and doesn't care about how much you love a product or company. It is just always looking for another pack of suckers from whom money can be successfully extracted. Be wary.
In Defense Of Apple: Battling The Mounting Hysteria [View article]
Good analysis wispokerguy and good reply dgres100. To some extent the mystery around Apple's fall is no big mystery. If you're going to hold onto all that cash because you need it to fuel growth, then you better not falter in your growth path (as Apple seems to have - very slightly - of late). In the absence of the impression growth (and it is just the impression that is lacking as the fundamentals aren't all that bad), then you had better reward your shareholders with nice dividends. Apple management seems to be floundering right now trying to figure out what corporate path they are on.
"The institutional money managers that wrote those call options and bought common stock to cover ..." I have some problems with the logic of this article. If the call options were sold to cover potential losses on AAPL stock (it's chicken or the egg whether calls were sold first then stock bought or stock bought first and calls sold) then what is the best way to get a return on investment? a) Keep price around $500 until calls expire then let it run up, or b) Keep price around $500 then sell more covered calls (say at $470) hoping the price stays low a bit longer, or c) forget about the calls and and just hope the actual value of the stock runs up. I guess in a short term (like the author) I can see the value of option a, but it seems like a pretty tight thing to control.
The other question is "who bought all these calls?" The premise seems to be they were largely sold by institutional investors but, at that volume were they all bought by individuals (read "suckers"). Did no institutions also buy calls? So what's the net best position and who has the most money to push AAPL up or down to their advantage? If it's all institutional investors with lots of power to manipulate (sorry, I mean "influence") then wouldn't it be best to allow AAPL to run up just enough to get the sheeple into buying options again, then repeat the covered call sell all over? If so, when will we just learn to avoid this kind of deal and when will fundamentals come to rule the market again?
Sorry for so many questions but your analysis seems to predicate only one endpoint in an endless game.
On Investor Concerns, And Why Apple Should Trade Above $700 [View article]
The problem is that RIM owns QNX which is the OS found in many cars, I believe. Are they going to encourage SIRI (an Apple product) to be clipped onto that system? I doubt it. But watch to see if RIM acquires any AI company.
Investors Should Keep Apple In Their Portfolios [View article]
BlackBerry Vs. Apple: Which Is A Winning Bet For 2013? [View article]
BlackBerry Vs. Apple: Which Is A Winning Bet For 2013? [View article]
BlackBerry Vs. Apple: Which Is A Winning Bet For 2013? [View article]
In Defense Of Apple: Battling The Mounting Hysteria [View article]
Well they do matter, just not in any way that will necessarily make sense to you. Stocks often move up when they beat the street estimates not necessarily when they become more profitable or raise dividends. Fundamentals might matter, but not in any way that makes sense. If they did, we would all demand 5% dividends or more and not buy stock that is below that.
In Defense Of Apple: Battling The Mounting Hysteria [View article]
In Defense Of Apple: Battling The Mounting Hysteria [View article]
In Defense Of Apple: Battling The Mounting Hysteria [View article]
Apple Earnings Preview: Can Shares Rebound? [View article]
Apple Earnings Preview: Can Shares Rebound? [View article]
Apple: Get Ready For January 18 [View article]
a) Keep price around $500 until calls expire then let it run up, or
b) Keep price around $500 then sell more covered calls (say at $470) hoping the price stays low a bit longer, or
c) forget about the calls and and just hope the actual value of the stock runs up. I guess in a short term (like the author) I can see the value of option a, but it seems like a pretty tight thing to control.
The other question is "who bought all these calls?" The premise seems to be they were largely sold by institutional investors but, at that volume were they all bought by individuals (read "suckers"). Did no institutions also buy calls? So what's the net best position and who has the most money to push AAPL up or down to their advantage? If it's all institutional investors with lots of power to manipulate (sorry, I mean "influence") then wouldn't it be best to allow AAPL to run up just enough to get the sheeple into buying options again, then repeat the covered call sell all over? If so, when will we just learn to avoid this kind of deal and when will fundamentals come to rule the market again?
Sorry for so many questions but your analysis seems to predicate only one endpoint in an endless game.
On Investor Concerns, And Why Apple Should Trade Above $700 [View article]