|
pr0k posted:Boring, maybe, but AAPL is easy to invest in on the long side. They have a shitton of cash, great FCF, and trade at a ridiculously low multiple. Just wait for them to get slapped for no particularly good reason, buy the dip, sell when it recovers, and watch out for low-flying fed governors. If I wanted to invest in cash, why would I take the equity risk of a technology company with it? I don't know why people keep parading Apple's cash pile around like it is a good thing. Most of it is overseas (unusable without a big tax hit), and even if they did distribute it to shareholders then what have you actually achieved? The same cash with a tax bill attached to it? The fact that they have had so much cash for so long comes to me as a bad thing for a technology company. It tells me that they have nothing to invest that cash in which could create a tangible return. As I have said earlier, Apple will be a good buy when they actually start investing in something noticeable. Until then, get out at $450 before the roller coaster hits the next hill.
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 03:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:22 |
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:If I wanted to invest in cash, why would I take the equity risk of a technology company with it? The reason the stock has been pummeled is because of a lull in the product pipeline "confirming" the myth that without Steve Jobs Apple is doomed. Steve Jobs was awesome, of course, but saying Apple is incapable of taking what he taught them and continuing to deliver products he would be proud of is kind of silly, when it's pretty obvious that the product pipeline through about 2014 or 2015 has always been pretty set in stone and the lull has nothing to do with Jobs' untimely death. A lull in major product launches is the stupidest thing to interpret back to Jobs's absence: it's if when Apple actually ships their next big thing it's ends up being unpolished and boring. I expect the stock will shoot back up to $600-$700 pretty quickly when Apple opens up its next product line if that product is good. If the next product line is poo poo and has a lot of design issues, I will be dumping the stock overnight. Their ballsy redesign of iOS tells me they are still the risk-taking company they've always been, and are gearing up for a lot of new products that will make the new design paradigm of iOS 7 (motion, layering, depth) shine. nebby fucked around with this message at 04:02 on Jul 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 03:59
|
|
|
nebby posted:The point is the cash provides a margin of safety by ensuring at the very least the dividend income stream is about as risk-free as a corporate bond in the near and mid-term future. The real reason to invest in Apple of course is a) the company is incredible and has strong economic moats all around it while b) the valuation is absurdly low by any valuation metric. quote:The reason the stock has been pummeled is because of a lull in the product pipeline "confirming" the myth that without Steve Jobs Apple is doomed. Steve Jobs was awesome, of course, but saying Apple is incapable of taking what he taught them and continuing to deliver products he would be proud of is kind of silly, when it's pretty obvious that the product pipeline through about 2014 or 2015 has always been pretty set in stone and the lull has nothing to do with Jobs' untimely death. A lull in major product launches is the stupidest thing to interpret back to Jobs's absence: it's if when Apple actually ships their next big thing it's ends up being unpolished and boring. quote:I expect the stock will shoot back up to $600-$700 pretty quickly when Apple opens up its next product line if that product is good. If the next product line is poo poo and has a lot of design issues, I will be dumping the stock overnight. Their ballsy redesign of iOS tells me they are still the risk-taking company they've always been, and are gearing up for a lot of new products that will make the new design paradigm of iOS 7 (motion, layering, depth) shine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 04:15
|
|
|
nebby posted:The U.S. labor market seems to me to be structurally hosed. The fed would be insane to tighten fiscal policy unless the employment rate is rising due to actual productive jobs being created, not PhD's being hired to flip burgers or having too much dignity to continue to apply for such jobs. As long as the fed continues to say their accommodative stance is tied to the health of the labor market, I'm pretty comfortable saying myself that we should expect QE, ZIRP, or whatever other tricks they may have up their sleeve to continue to punt the ball until "the next big thing" comes along to hire all these people to do something useful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 04:19
|
|
|
gvibes posted:We certainly "should" expect QE/ZIRP/etc. to continue. But when the Bernanke goes up there and talks about tapering, it makes you wonder whether he agrees. He is just talking out his term. There is no real intention of stopping anything, that job will fall to his replacement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 04:23
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:The taxable income stream of an investment grade corporate bond with the principle risk of an technology stock? Not exactly my kind of investment. Also, we have been sitting here since January arguing about Apple being undervalued, yet it continues to float in the low 400s even though the broader market has rocketed upwards in the first half of the year. I sold my Apple shares in February at $465 after buying at $500 a month before. I put the money into SPY and a small cap ETF. SPY is up 7% and the small cap is up 10%, even after the correction. In my opinion, the biggest risk with Apple is not that it will drop further, but foregoing better investments while you wait for it to "take off to $700" for the next year and a half. I run my screens regularly for these types of stocks and AAPL still stands out as one of the best opportunities out there. I don't consider waiting for realization of this value to be some type of opportunity cost unless there are similar ones I am missing out on. I certainly don't feel this way while I see the SPY skyrocketing when the fundamentals don't seem to add up imho.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
gvibes posted:We certainly "should" expect QE/ZIRP/etc. to continue. But when the Bernanke goes up there and talks about tapering, it makes you wonder whether he agrees.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 04:31
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:... Until then, get out at $450 before the roller coaster hits the next hill.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 04:49
|
|
|
nebby posted:Yeah I guess I'm just saying that the signal I'm looking for to determine if legit tightening is imminent is not going to be Big Ben coming out and saying it directly but if the Fed softens it's focus on the labor market or if data coming from the labor market points to a genuine improvement in job prospects for people. I think you will be waiting a long time for that. Ben is leaving at the end of the year so any conversation about ending QE should start with his successor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 04:57
|
|
|
I just got some $SLV and $GLD here. Edit: I believe $GLD and $SLV will go up higher in the long term. I am starting to build my long position from this level since I like the market perception of the two. My first small block consist of 5K trades, yes I know I am down 1.65% as of today in silver but that is peanuts. I am a trader so if I see something worrisome I will get rid of the dog with flies ASAP. My top trades for the foreseeable future are the following:
Good luck trading! Lazy Broker fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Jul 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 15:09
|
|
|
Sanky Panky posted:I just got some $SLV and $GLD here. Does it involve Ron Paul?
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
Swapped out 10% of my AAPL for TSLA. Mostly a placebo thing at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
TSLA seems like an insane thing to put money in. Am I in the bubble or out of the bubble?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 00:29
|
|
|
Moved some money into IEMG yesterday as I though emerging markets had bottomed out some and were a good value. So far so good, but I am wary about future China GDP data... quote:We certainly "should" expect QE/ZIRP/etc. to continue. But when the Bernanke goes up there and talks about tapering, it makes you wonder whether he agrees. Anything with the Fed is always going to be a big PR head game. Cheesemaster200 fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Jul 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
I still like INTC. But holding out for earnings to see what happens. It's not as cheap as it was when I bought it so the upside is limited everything I have is green except aapl. I'm up 10% so far this year :/
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 03:39
|
|
|
flowinprose posted:Into the grave with Steve Jobs. A bit late to the party, but surely you guys must have missed the Mac Pro. It's unlike any computer I've seen, and it fits on your desk. I'm buying long $AAPL all day. http://www.apple.com/mac-pro/
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 05:25
|
|
|
COUNTIN THE BILLIES posted:I'm up 10% so far this year :/ yikes, I'm not doing much better. My personal account is up 12.7%  My work account is...a lot higher than that. It's amazing what you can do when you have some real size to throw around.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 05:50
|
|
|
Moogs posted:A bit late to the party, but surely you guys must have missed the Mac Pro. It's unlike any computer I've seen, and it fits on your desk. I'm buying long $AAPL all day. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 06:09
|
|
|
How do you guys feel about small caps? A lot of the coversations here seem to revolve around the larger companies - not sure if its just because there is more to discuss or not as much interest in small caps.. but its where i spend most of my time and get some of my better returns. (For reference I typically intend to hold between 6 months to a year+ depending on performance). Been holding MRGE for a few months and recently bought up some shares in JOEZ - hoping they are able to grow their sales according to their plans but we will see. Anyways it would be nice to see what you all are speculating about, so post your small caps!
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 07:07
|
|
|
Moogs posted:A bit late to the party, but surely you guys must have missed the Mac Pro. It's unlike any computer I've seen, and it fits on your desk. I'm buying long $AAPL all day. lol this is a joke right apple seriously doesn't loving understand business computing - design firms aside.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 11:30
|
|
|
This may sound pretty reckless but I'd like to know how comically bad of a gamble this is. Knowing very little about how to pick stocks but this idea looks more practical then going to a casino. Assuming the chances of the stock jumping a lot in either direction is low, you buy a call/put option on the same strike for the same quantity. Of course they are going to cost a different amount and I haven't thought of how that plays into things, but the idea is that the stock shifts relatively more in one direction to offset the loss from the other option. It's hard to stimulate this on Investopedia but I'm going to play around with it. Nf3 fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Jul 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 15:21
|
|
|
This is called a straddle (you're straddling a specific strike price) http://www.optionseducation.org/strategies_advanced_concepts/strategies/long_straddle.html e: Wait you're thinking the price wont move? Short strangle: http://www.optionseducation.org/strategies_advanced_concepts/strategies/short_strangle.html e: And if you're wrong you can lose crazy amounts because you're short both calls and puts. Shmoogy fucked around with this message at 15:38 on Jul 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 15:35
|
|
|
Nf3 posted:This may sound pretty reckless but I'd like to know how comically bad of a gamble this is. Knowing very little about how to pick stocks but this idea looks more practical then going to a casino. Assuming the chances of the stock jumping a lot in either direction is low, you buy a call/put option on the same strike for the same quantity. Of course they are going to cost a different amount and I haven't thought of how that plays into things, but the idea is that the stock shifts relatively more in one direction to offset the loss from the other option. What he said. This is a pretty common strategy, actually, whenever someone things there's going to be a large move in one direction or another. Stock trading actually has a lot of "make two bets that are kind of in opposition to each other." For another example, you can bet the overall market will go down, but also bet a particular stock you like will go up. If market goes down and your stock with it, at least you made some money on your negative market bet. If your stock goes up and so does the market, at least you made money on your positive stock bet. If you're smart/lucky, you picked a stock that rises more than the market does, and falls less than the market does.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 15:52
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:This is called a straddle (you're straddling a specific strike price) Crazy amount? From the article: quote:Max Loss It looks like the most I can lose is the premium paid. I'm thinking of employing this strategy before a FDA trial for some of these biotech stocks. Those shoot a large amount in either direction whether its approved or denied by the FDA, of course not always as I am well aware the price of the stock may already reflect the price if the FDA approves the drug. Edit: If the stuck doesn't budge at all I will lose a crazy amount, the cost of two premiums. As long as it moves past the strike+premium in either direction , at worst I'll break even. This sounds like a pretty sweet strategy. Nf3 fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Jul 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 16:23
|
|
|
Nf3 posted:Crazy amount? From the article: You implied in your first post that you expect the underlying stock price to NOT move much in either direction. In that case, you would not buy a straddle or strangle but instead you would sell short straddles or strangles. When you write options, your maximum loss is much higher than the premiums you earn from the sale (technically unlimited for calls and for puts you can lose the entire strike price).
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 16:29
|
|
|
Short Strangle: Max Loss The maximum loss is unlimited. The maximum loss occurs if the stock goes to infinity, and a very substantial loss would occur if the stock became worthless. In the first case the loss is infinity, and in the second the loss is the put strike price; in both cases the loss is reduced by the amount of premium received for selling the options. Max Gain The maximum gain is very limited. The maximum gain occurs if the underlying stock remains between the strike prices. In that case, both options expire worthless and the investor pockets the premium received for selling the options. -- Short strangles can be much more dangerous. Like all things, they have their place as long as you know what you're doing and can limit your risk.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
Nf3 posted:I'm thinking of employing this strategy before a FDA trial for some of these biotech stocks. Those shoot a large amount in either direction whether its approved or denied by the FDA, of course not always as I am well aware the price of the stock may already reflect the price if the FDA approves the drug. I think this poster mis-typed in the first post, and does in fact mean he/she expects a large move. In which case yes, a straddle. It is a pretty good strategy for when you expect a big move, as you said. Tricky part is, you're not the only one who expects a large move from an FDA decision. Those stocks typically have particularly high costs of a straddle, requiring a larger move for you to break even. People talk about "implied moves," meaning, based on the price of a straddle, how much does the investing world think this thing is going to move? i.e. how far does the share price have to move for the straddle to break even?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 16:41
|
|
|
Nf3 posted:Crazy amount? From the article: Volatility is factored into options pricing. In order for you to break even the stock would have to move past the strike price plus both premiums, which will be higher for stocks with expected volatility.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 16:43
|
|
|
alnilam posted:I think this poster mis-typed in the first post, and does in fact mean he/she expects a large move. In which case yes, a straddle. Yeah I misread it at first, and his reply makes it seem that my initial read was correct. He wants to do a straddle. Depending on who you use as a broker, you can probably simulate things better than on investopedia- but as Alnilam said, it's more difficult than you might think to profit off of it, as if people believe a move is coming, the premiums will be higher, and require a larger move to make profits. You might be correct about the move, and barely break even depending on circumstances. e: Beaten again with a more coherent explanation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
Also be aware of liquidity. Most likely you won't get in and out at ideal prices because there just isn't a lot of action in many stocks options.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 16:52
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:Does it involve Ron Paul? It does not involve him :P However, If you look in my post I edited and explained some of the trades I am looking in the foreseeable future. I am about to start a bearish portfolio in the market.  These are the news I like to see CNBC (Joke News) to pump out while I start my position: Gold Nears $1,300, but Analysts Say It's Not a 'Buy' quote:Gold soared almost 3 percent to a two-and-a-half week high on Thursday after dovish comments from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, but analysts are still not convinced the metal is a good long-term buy. Source:CNBC http://www.cnbc.com/id/100878808
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:Short strangles can be much more dangerous...limit your risk. It's probably also worth mentioning here that a nice way to be short vol and still limit your risk is to use a fly or condor instead of a straddle or strangle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 19:36
|
|
|
ATT is buying LEAP for $15, so obviously it would trade for $16.82  Also, the runup since June 24th looks SHADY AS gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
abagofcheetos posted:ATT is buying LEAP for $15, so obviously it would trade for $16.82 quote:For one investor who picked up 672 contracts at that price at 3:42 p.m. EDT in a “sweep,” meaning the position was split into a number of smaller trades across a variety of options exchanges, a $16.60 share price could mean $504,672 in profits on a trade that cost $6,048 to set up. Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/07/12/options-trades-spiked-on-leap-ahead-of-att-deal/
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
Jesus Christ, how can that not get investigated?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2013 04:05
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Jesus Christ, how can that not get investigated?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2013 06:45
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Jesus Christ, how can that not get investigated?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2013 07:53
|
|
|
I sincerely hope this is legitimate, and I hope this satiates Wall St for a long while: http://www.engadget.com/2013/07/10/multicolored-budget-iphone/
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2013 11:17
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:I sincerely hope this is legitimate, and I hope this satiates Wall St for a long while: http://www.engadget.com/2013/07/10/multicolored-budget-iphone/ I've been thinking about this. The budget iphone is almost certainly real. But AAPL investors are used to profits from high-margin premium products. Won't they see moving into the budget category along with the lower margins that exist in that space as a threat to AAPL's model?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2013 11:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 04:22 |
|
|
Lower price doesn't mean low margin. A “budget” iPhone would target upfront phone purchases rather than contract subsidies, so it wouldn't hit the margins that the iPhone currently enjoys, but there's no reason it couldn't fall in line with the ~30% gross margins of iPods, iPads and Macs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2013 14:36
|
|
