The APPLE Crash

[cactiman]

Quote from GrandSupercycle:

These type of moves are unsustainable and tend to end in tears . . .
This APPLE monthly chart won't be any different.

The 2009-20012 uptrend looks more reasonable and less "parabolic" when the years (horizontal axis) aren't so close together. See the attached weekly chart.

I've personally bet (via Vertical Credit Spreads) on AAPL closing at 500 or above on 10/19/12, and plan to buy a new iPad with the profits if I'm correct.

 

[jnbadger]

Quote from NoDoji:

BIDU's chart looked like that in October 2010 and it ran nearly another 50% in less than 8 months.

AAPL's currently undervalued. Their 2012 earnings are projected at $42/share, a 50% gain over 2011 earnings.

The big tears come from shareholders in companies whose stock price runs to ridiculous P/E levels based on irrational crowd behavior, when the fundamentals support no possibility of that sort of growth. GMCR and NFLX come to mind. You'd think they were about to announce a cure for all cancers based on the price to earnings ratios during their run up.

AAPL grew revenues and earnings through a near-Depression recession and has shown no sign of letting up.

AAPL trades at a P/E of 13 and right now as I type this 99.999999% of its shareholders are profitable.

Look for crashes elsewhere. Maybe AMZN with its P/E of 135...

If I keep agreeing with you, people will start to talk. Oh well. Relative strength speaks volumes. Look at the charts of IBM, MCD, and AAPL during, and after the August decline of 2011. Simply buying opportunities. Strong stocks in a weak market is quite the tell, in my opinion.

 

[cactiman]

I don't see anything unusual or scary about AAPL's latest move. Since March 2009 it's been doing the same thing over and over: A breakout rally lasting a few months, then several months of sideways consolidation. A classic "earnings announcement" long grinding uptrend.
A rest period in the 425-525 zone would make sense to me on the current chart - before the next rally to 600?. We'll see.
Until a higher low is violently taken out I'd stick with the Trend, rather than trying to guess how high AAPL can or can't go. If they keep making money why should there be limits? Especially with its great fundamentals - i.e. no Debt & a low PE Ratio, etc.
My plan is to keep buying the dips and breakouts, and just sit back and enjoy the ride.

 

[Nine_Ender]

Quote from GrandSupercycle:

Feb 11 2012

Nine_Ender,
It's fortuitous I took you off ignore.
I never suggested shorting AAPL which is clear for all to see.
As mentioned previously, you continually conflate TA analysis with actual trades.
You do it intentionally but the question is why ?
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=236316
Importantly you have once again exposed yourself as a pathological liar.
You are very good at it.
Apart from being an embittered troll what is your motive for doing this ?
I should disclose that a friend who's a consultant psychologist is fascinated by your pathological trolling and cyber-stalking.
She no longer waits for updates from myself, but now reads your posts directly so I can have you on ignore.
So now she gives me updates on you and i'm so curious i'll have a look myself...
The psych wants to know if you've heard of mythomania - borderline personality disorder - histrionic personality disorder - if you've received psychotherapy as an adult - and are you're divorced and if so how many marriages ?
Can you help her out please ?

You know, I do like when you put the posts side by side because it helps illustrate just how irrational and full of bs you are. So you are claiming an "AAPL Crash" thread has nothing to do with a short call ? Well, what the hell is it then Sherlock ?

We all know what it is. Its purposeful vague bs meant to morph into a call later if it is a profitable call. If it isn't profitable, you'll just claim it was some sort of 20 year plan that hasn't happened yet.

You remain evasive and belligerent like most Con Men.

 

[GrandSupercycle]

Quote from NoDoji:
Look for crashes elsewhere. Maybe AMZN with its P/E of 135.

Looks like I need to check out the AMZN monthly chart as well, if it has a 135 PE.
[disclosure as per stockmarket618.wordpress.com - no AAPL position held]

 

[bwolinsky]

Quote from atticus:

The shares aren't done, but I will be betting against a touch of $500 through March. Even with the dot-shot it's still cheap, but it's reaching diminishing returns. I don't think what is essentially a handset maker can scale beyond $500B in mcap.

This is a really good post here.

It is impossible for Apple to crash at such a low PE, and even the forward PE for next years earnings is below 10.

GrandSuperCycle is a fool, but I'm waiting for a pull back so I can go long, and it definitely won't be a crash.

If he were to define crash it wouldn't be the usual 20% in six months, it'll be 3-5% in 5 days, and that doesn't meet the definition and is entirely unlikely.

Yet another idiotic call meant to stir controversy.

The PE ratio is where it's at for this, and the peg is below 0.3 if earnings are to grow 50%. It's impossible for stocks with those values to ever crash.

We also have no other definitions of duration, price, or even whether he's short or not. It's getting to "con man" status everywhere whenever he posts another thread about parabolic rises when the move in Apple is completely explained by growth in earnings, and this chart shows it.

I remember the story at my Brokerage internship about the man who sold MSFT in 1986 because "it wasn't doing anything." The guy still had the ticket, and lost $1 million that day even though he had a small profit to show for it. The "win" was nothing compared to the opportunity cost of the trade, and the same situation happens here.

If you estimated what $100 billion is as a cushion for a $400 billion company, there isn't anything but 10x growth that isn't being factored in here and even though Jobs passing was a tragedy, it was expected and I think the board will make all the right moves to see this stock hit $1 trillion in market cap.

 

[JJacksET4]

1. When stocks become #1, everyone goes after them - it seems like MSFT, XOM, GE and a few others have been #1 in market cap in the years I've been an adult and they all went under at some point - not sure how Apple can be different - not saying it can't hit $500 or even $700 first, but would it really be impossible for it to fall back to $250-300 at some point?

2. I recently bought a Samsung Table and can't imagine how the IPad could really be any better - the Samsung is larger and lower cost and just as bright and crisp, etc, etc. The scary thing for Apple should be that Samsung, Toshiba, etc. haven't gotten into pricing wars with these yet.

3. At some point people are going to get tired of buying the iPhone 6 only to have the 7 come out 3 months later and so on.

4. If Apple ever makes a mistake, misses earnings, or has any bad PR occur, their stock is very vulnerable to a fall IMO. Maybe it won't ever happen, but it's hard to believe.

 

[Bowgett]

AAPL is going to $600. Peroid.

 

[Nine_Ender]

Quote from JJacksET4:

1. When stocks become #1, everyone goes after them - it seems like MSFT, XOM, GE and a few others have been #1 in market cap in the years I've been an adult and they all went under at some point - not sure how Apple can be different - not saying it can't hit $500 or even $700 first, but would it really be impossible for it to fall back to $250-300 at some point?

2. I recently bought a Samsung Table and can't imagine how the IPad could really be any better - the Samsung is larger and lower cost and just as bright and crisp, etc, etc. The scary thing for Apple should be that Samsung, Toshiba, etc. haven't gotten into pricing wars with these yet.

3. At some point people are going to get tired of buying the iPhone 6 only to have the 7 come out 3 months later and so on.

4. If Apple ever makes a mistake, misses earnings, or has any bad PR occur, their stock is very vulnerable to a fall IMO. Maybe it won't ever happen, but it's hard to believe.

Ok, so the summary of what you are saying is the stock is $495 and you think it can go to $700 or $300. I don't see an edge. In fact, I think the likelihood of it going to $700 is much higher then it going to $300, but that is just my opinion based on forward P/E.

 

[bwolinsky]

Quote from JJacksET4:

1. When stocks become #1, everyone goes after them - it seems like MSFT, XOM, GE and a few others have been #1 in market cap in the years I've been an adult and they all went under at some point - not sure how Apple can be different - not saying it can't hit $500 or even $700 first, but would it really be impossible for it to fall back to $250-300 at some point?

2. I recently bought a Samsung Table and can't imagine how the IPad could really be any better - the Samsung is larger and lower cost and just as bright and crisp, etc, etc. The scary thing for Apple should be that Samsung, Toshiba, etc. haven't gotten into pricing wars with these yet.

3. At some point people are going to get tired of buying the iPhone 6 only to have the 7 come out 3 months later and so on.

4. If Apple ever makes a mistake, misses earnings, or has any bad PR occur, their stock is very vulnerable to a fall IMO. Maybe it won't ever happen, but it's hard to believe.

Number 1, as in the value of market cap, is one of the least optimizable parameters in the market. If there was a way for linear regressions not to include this value in their assumptions, it would already be priced into the market if the value we assign to the logarithm of price is projected to be at least as much as the most valuable company in the world, based on earnings potential.

Whenever I, in conjunction with linear regression, regress price onto the log of market cap, it's always determined by whatever the market's definition of "value" is at that particular time, and until I find the values a time series regression of market expectations assigns to each value, we will never know whether a growth rate of 500 times margin is equivalent to the basic definition of logarithm to time.

If the assumption is for quarterly, then the definition is for quarterly expectations, and if the definition is for monthly, as I have seen most hedge funds do, then it is not whether this stock is going to $500 per share but well over some regressed definition far exceeding the current valuation of similar companies. There are not similar companies because Steve Jobs was a genius, and even if time was defiined as the most recent quarterly period, it is not against time whether we should measure if the price reaches $500 per share but if it reaches $1,000 per share and a value significantly beyond the variable time, which can't be determined due to heteroskedasticity and even if you do model a logarithm of market cap to the consistent variables we find that time is not be associated with the overwhelming profitability of their underpricing of such things as non-dependent or non-dependable prices of such things as their iTunes' profitability and even though we nearly eliminate the variable of typical assumptions it's often that time,when in place of profitable per amounts of share, is less than the expected value of certain assymetrical assumptions of typical price action it's not as if time is a variable more than that profitability of the theory of the business model cannot possibly exaccerabate the profitability of the probability matrix window that Appple has because of its iTunes business model, which will exaccerbate the potential profitability of the company as a whole, and bring Apple Inc. to the most profitable fourth deminensional decile of time that is not accounted for in the typical logarithmic linear regression we all know projects Apple as the most profitable definition of profitability itself as even the most entrenched model of Microsoft could ever give to a definition of economic exploitation that Apple has when given the ease of use to such potential profitability as iTunes, the iPhone, and even the iPad that could also be turned into a larger more stable and usable version as the iPhone if the iPad were turned into a profitable no questioned version of iPhone if a mere 2 usb port adaptation to microphones enabled the user to exploit the advantages of conducting business and deals in the use of that model into the epitome of economic business use by way of synching the desires of the operator/owner with that of the belililed synched use of reasonable exploitation that would allow the use of the iPad to be just as useful as the iPhone merely because of the sake of communication and out of that extended use as a communication tool. The purchasing power of iPad and iPhone users is enhanced if it is put towards its most highest end use, and that, my friend, is the definition of efficiency.