Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #38809 > unrolled thread
| Started by | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-01-23 17:07 -0500 |
| Last post | 2013-01-24 23:08 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 80 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system
Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-23 17:07 -0500
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-23 17:41 -0500
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-23 17:54 -0500
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-23 23:04 -0500
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-01-23 23:05 -0500
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-23 21:27 -0700
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-24 08:06 -0800
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-01-24 06:03 +0000
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-01-24 03:56 -0500
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-01-24 17:34 +0000
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-24 08:01 -0800
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-24 15:34 -0500
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-24 13:44 -0700
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Howard.not@home.com (Howard) - 2013-01-24 23:08 +0000
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-24 19:12 -0600
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Howard.not@home.com (Howard) - 2013-01-25 01:52 +0000
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-25 04:57 -0500
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-25 07:38 -0800
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Howard.not@home.com (Howard) - 2013-01-27 18:33 +0000
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-27 15:45 -0500
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-28 10:46 -0600
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-01-24 16:04 -0500
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-24 16:58 -0700
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-24 19:20 -0500
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-01-24 19:50 -0500
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-24 16:52 -0800
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-25 04:50 -0500
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-01-25 15:23 +0000
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-25 07:39 -0800
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-01-25 10:58 -0500
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-25 07:39 -0800
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-25 11:05 -0700
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-01-25 13:27 -0500
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-25 12:42 -0700
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-01-25 16:56 -0500
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-25 15:10 -0700
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-01-25 20:53 -0500
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-25 19:59 -0700
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-25 23:43 -0500
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-26 05:16 -0500
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-26 14:03 -0500
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-26 15:08 -0500
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-26 16:02 -0500
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-26 12:16 -0700
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-26 14:44 -0500
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-26 13:28 -0700
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-26 16:14 -0500
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-01-26 00:29 -0500
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-26 05:18 -0500
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-26 12:13 -0700
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-25 18:04 -0500
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-25 16:42 -0700
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-25 23:30 -0500
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-26 12:24 -0700
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-25 18:01 -0500
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-24 16:53 -0800
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-24 19:18 -0600
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-25 07:15 -0800
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-01-24 19:59 -0500
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-25 07:26 -0800
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-01-25 16:07 -0500
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-25 13:30 -0800
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-01-26 09:13 -0500
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-26 13:24 -0800
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-01-26 16:58 -0500
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-26 14:10 -0800
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-01-26 17:16 -0500
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-26 14:25 -0800
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-01-27 09:27 -0500
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-27 09:19 -0800
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-01-28 19:41 -0500
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-28 19:17 -0800
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-28 09:56 -0600
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-28 09:54 -0600
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-01-25 02:59 +0000
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-25 07:42 -0800
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-24 16:03 -0800
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-24 16:09 -0800
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-01-24 15:42 +0100
Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Howard.not@home.com (Howard) - 2013-01-24 23:08 +0000
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-28 10:46 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <CD2C078A.97017%ghost_topper@hotmail.com> |
| In reply to | #39056 |
On 1/27/13 2:45 PM, in article 510591da$0$28739$c3e8da3$f017e9df@news.astraweb.com, "JF Mezei" <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > Apple has lost the title of the world's most valuable compay. > Exxon-Mobil back on top. > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21205692 > > > > In it is a perfect example of the incluence of the Wall Street Casino on > the media: > > ## > Apple, which posted disappointing iPhone sales figures on Wednesday, has > seen its shares fall 37% since their record high last September. > ## > > What the media should be saying instead is > > "despite record iPhone sales, the stock was battered because some > analysts realised their predictions had been wrong". > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21194396 > In another BBC article which compare Samsung to Apple to Nokia, there is > a more positive spin, with a note that while Samsung gets all the prise > estimates are that only only sold 40 million Galaxy S phones while Apple > sold 47.8 million. > > Of note: Mobile phones now account for half of Samsung's profits. So > Apple is no longer the only one whose smart phones are profitable. > > > > In contrast, Nokia Lumia sold 4.4 million phones. But at a cost... > average price was for Lumias was $250 while iPhones sold for average > $641. Not much room for profit there. > > Not to mention this observation from The Motley Fool: On Thursday, the day after Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) reported earnings of $13.81 a share on revenue of $54.5 billion, Apple's stock fell by over 12%. Last year’s EPS for the same quarter was $13.87 and revenue came in at $46.3 billion, but last year also had a 14 week long quarter compared to a 13 week long quarter this time around. Many said Apple's earnings were flat, but if you factor in that extra week Apple would have theoretically made $14.87 a share on revenue of $58.69 billion. Net income was $13.1 billion, $14.107 billion if you add in the extra week. So when those in the financial media are saying that Apple's earnings were flat or that Apple has lost its magic, you have to consider that extra week and then you realize that it's not as bad as it seems. An extra week What does an extra week mean for Apple? Well, it sold about 3.7 million iPhones per week compared to 2.6 million per week last year. That would have bumped Apple's total iPhone sales up to 51.5 million for the quarter. They also sold 1.7 million iPads per week compared to 1.1 million per week last year, which would have bumped up Apple's total iPad sales to 24.6 million for the quarter. A similar story plays out for iPods, Macs, and the other divisions of Apple. Had Apple been given another week it would have hit the "blowout" earnings people wanted. <http://beta.fool.com/callumturcan/2013/01/28/dont-panic/22646/?source=eogyh olnk0000001>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-24 16:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <barmar-13F62C.16043924012013@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #38886 |
In article <51019ac0$0$21003$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 13-01-24 11:01, Jolly Roger wrote: > > > Meanwhile, long investors pointed at the crybaby "analysts" and giggled. > > Dropping $60 in half a day is no reason to giggle. > > What YOU think of Apple's future doesn't matter if other investors are > fleeing the stock because they have decided it is overpriced and Apple > has lost its edge. > > It doesn't matter that you are right and they are wrong. Stock market > doesn't reflect your opinion, even if it may be factually correct, it > reflects market sentiment. Contrarian investing is often a very profitable strategy. If everyone else is short-sighted and driving the price down, this can be a great opportunity for you to buy at a good price. If you're correct that the slump is temporary, you'll get a windfall when the company turns around and the masses jump back on board. Of course, you have to be correct about the lemmings. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-24 16:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <michelle-E043AA.16585624012013@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #38894 |
In article <barmar-13F62C.16043924012013@news.eternal-september.org>, Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > Contrarian investing is often a very profitable strategy. > > If everyone else is short-sighted and driving the price down, this can > be a great opportunity for you to buy at a good price. If you're correct > that the slump is temporary, you'll get a windfall when the company > turns around and the masses jump back on board. The trick is to buy right before the turnaround, and not too soon or too late. -- Ignore this sig.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-24 19:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <5101cfe5$0$5913$c3e8da3$50776f34@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #38910 |
On 13-01-24 18:58, Michelle Steiner wrote: > The trick is to buy right before the turnaround, and not too soon or too > late. That is the problem. If analysts always overestimate the goals, it means that Apple will always miss estimates and its stock will always drop. So while the financials keep on improving and the share price SHOULD rise, the fact that Apple consistently misses (unrealistic) estimates will keep price down in long term. And that is something Apple needs to worry about because shareholders won't be too happy. The solution is to counter those analysts estimates with realistic ones instead of letting the Wall Street Casino come up with their own random numbers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-24 19:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <barmar-B2679D.19504524012013@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #38918 |
In article <5101cfe5$0$5913$c3e8da3$50776f34@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 13-01-24 18:58, Michelle Steiner wrote: > > > The trick is to buy right before the turnaround, and not too soon or too > > late. > > That is the problem. If analysts always overestimate the goals, it means > that Apple will always miss estimates and its stock will always drop. So I used to work for Akamai, the premiere CDN provider on the Internet. It's a great company, it managed to survive through the burst of the Internet bubble, and even did well during the heat of the recession. We pretty much always beat our guidance, posting 20% year-over-year revenue improvements. Yet almost every quarter the stock price dropped 5-10% when we announced earnings. (I think this past fall was one of the first times in years that this didn't happen). I don't think analysts really care about meeting guidance -- they know that part of the "game" is that companies have internal and public goals, and the published guidance will be low to ensure that it's achievable. It's kind of like the game when setting a price for a house. When you first put a house on the market, you set the asking price high, because you know you're going to have to negotiate down. Meanwhile, a prospective buyer will offer less than he's willing to pay. You go through a few cycles of ask and offer, and you settle on a price in the middle. But you can't just set that price at the beginning, because everyone *knows* that the seller starts high and the buyer starts low -- haggling is an expected part of the process (like an bazaar in the Middle East). -- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-24 16:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <jollyroger-659D05.16522924012013@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #38918 |
In article <5101cfe5$0$5913$c3e8da3$50776f34@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 13-01-24 18:58, Michelle Steiner wrote: > > > The trick is to buy right before the turnaround, and not too soon or too > > late. > > That is the problem. If analysts always overestimate the goals, it means > that Apple will always miss estimates and its stock will always drop. ...and if stock price is all you care about, you're already panicking. Stupid. -- Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-25 04:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <51025552$0$7660$c3e8da3$12bcf670@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #38921 |
On 13-01-24 19:52, Jolly Roger wrote: > ...and if stock price is all you care about, you're already panicking. > Stupid. When you buy AAPL shares, you have to worry about stock price especially when share value represents a huge value of your investment. When you have money to invest, you espect a positive return on investment. Sure, if you bought AAPL at $200 3 years ago, you can afford to have it drop down to $300 and still declare a better return on investment than putting your money in a bank. But if you bought at $500 or $600, you have already lost a lot of money and must decide whether to cut your losses, sell at that price and perhaps buy later when you feel it has bottomed, or ride the roller coaster for very long term. And if your share in AAPL were purchased at different prices, then the strategy becomes a bit more complex.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-25 15:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnkg58r8.pah.g.kreme@mbp55.local> |
| In reply to | #38936 |
In message <51025552$0$7660$c3e8da3$12bcf670@news.astraweb.com> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > But if you bought at $500 or $600, you have already lost a lot of money No, you haven't. You have only 'lost' if you sell at a lower price. If you do not sell, then you haven't lost any money. -- "You never really understand a person until you see things from his point of view, until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-25 07:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <jollyroger-B27C9E.07393425012013@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #38942 |
In article <slrnkg58r8.pah.g.kreme@mbp55.local>, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > In message <51025552$0$7660$c3e8da3$12bcf670@news.astraweb.com> > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > > But if you bought at $500 or $600, you have already lost a lot of money > > No, you haven't. You have only 'lost' if you sell at a lower price. If > you do not sell, then you haven't lost any money. He doesn't get what investment is about. -- Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-25 10:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <barmar-925436.10583725012013@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #38942 |
In article <slrnkg58r8.pah.g.kreme@mbp55.local>, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote: > In message <51025552$0$7660$c3e8da3$12bcf670@news.astraweb.com> > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > > But if you bought at $500 or $600, you have already lost a lot of money > > No, you haven't. You have only 'lost' if you sell at a lower price. If > you do not sell, then you haven't lost any money. You actually lost at the moment you made the investment, since you no longer have the money, all you have is a (usually virtual) piece of paper. It's not like most things you buy, where you get value out of using it (or art, where the value is in enjoying looking at it, although some people buy Disney stock because their certificates are pretty). The only value of stock is that you can later sell it (unless the company pays dividends, so you get a small amount of income in return), but the value of that paper is at the mercy of the stock market. And when you do eventually sell, anything you get is a gain, but some gains are bigger than others. And if the gain is more than you could have gained with some alternative use of the original money, you did well. But the real answer is that you can't predict the future. At any time, you look at the price of the stock you own, and that's its value. If you need the money now, that's what you can get. Think of it like a home whose value has gone down (not due to anything wrong with the property, just because of the housing market in general); if you need to move, you may be forced to accept the lower price. The point is that these prices affect your ability to buy other things, unless this is purely "extra" money that you don't really need. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-25 07:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <jollyroger-1E47D6.07390825012013@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #38936 |
In article <51025552$0$7660$c3e8da3$12bcf670@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 13-01-24 19:52, Jolly Roger wrote: > > > ...and if stock price is all you care about, you're already panicking. > > Stupid. > > When you buy AAPL shares, you have to worry about stock price especially > when share value represents a huge value of your investment. But if you put that above all else, you've failed. -- Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-25 11:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <michelle-FEE278.11051425012013@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #38936 |
In article <51025552$0$7660$c3e8da3$12bcf670@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > > ...and if stock price is all you care about, you're already panicking. > > Stupid. > > When you buy AAPL shares, you have to worry about stock price especially > when share value represents a huge value of your investment. so long as Apple is making money and issuing dividends, it doesn't matter what the stock price is. > Sure, if you bought AAPL at $200 3 years ago, you can afford to have it > drop down to $300 and still declare a better return on investment than > putting your money in a bank. > > But if you bought at $500 or $600, you have already lost a lot of money You haven't lost a cent because you haven't sold the stock. In fact, you made money because Apple issued dividends. -- Ignore this sig.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-25 13:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <250120131327461605%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #38959 |
In article <michelle-FEE278.11051425012013@news.eternal-september.org>, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote: > > > ...and if stock price is all you care about, you're already panicking. > > > Stupid. > > > > When you buy AAPL shares, you have to worry about stock price especially > > when share value represents a huge value of your investment. > > so long as Apple is making money and issuing dividends, it doesn't matter > what the stock price is. of course the share price matters. > > Sure, if you bought AAPL at $200 3 years ago, you can afford to have it > > drop down to $300 and still declare a better return on investment than > > putting your money in a bank. > > > > But if you bought at $500 or $600, you have already lost a lot of money > > You haven't lost a cent because you haven't sold the stock. In fact, you > made money because Apple issued dividends. are you actually saying you make money when the share price drops by $267 per share as of right now (~40%) from its peak because it pays a paltry $2.65 in dividends? where do you get your investment advice?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-25 12:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <michelle-331E5E.12425325012013@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #38960 |
In article <250120131327461605%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > > You haven't lost a cent because you haven't sold the stock. In fact, > > you made money because Apple issued dividends. > > are you actually saying you make money when the share price drops by > $267 per share as of right now (~40%) from its peak because it pays a > paltry $2.65 in dividends? Yes, I am actually saying that. Dividends and other income/expenses aside, the value of the stock does not affect how much cash I have on hand or in my bank account. It's only when I sell the stock that its value determines whether I've lost or made money on the transaction. But in the meantime, the stock paid dividends, so I made money from that. -- Ignore this sig.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-25 16:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <barmar-53E9A8.16561025012013@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #38963 |
In article <michelle-331E5E.12425325012013@news.eternal-september.org>, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote: > In article <250120131327461605%nospam@nospam.invalid>, > nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > > > > You haven't lost a cent because you haven't sold the stock. In fact, > > > you made money because Apple issued dividends. > > > > are you actually saying you make money when the share price drops by > > $267 per share as of right now (~40%) from its peak because it pays a > > paltry $2.65 in dividends? > > Yes, I am actually saying that. Have the dividends made up for what you spent on the stock in the first place? > > Dividends and other income/expenses aside, the value of the stock does not > affect how much cash I have on hand or in my bank account. True, but it affects how much cash you could get if you need to. When the stock price drops, you have less ability to raise money. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-25 15:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <michelle-20C735.15104625012013@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #38966 |
In article <barmar-53E9A8.16561025012013@news.eternal-september.org>, Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > > > You haven't lost a cent because you haven't sold the stock. In > > > > fact, you made money because Apple issued dividends. > > > > > > are you actually saying you make money when the share price drops by > > > $267 per share as of right now (~40%) from its peak because it pays > > > a paltry $2.65 in dividends? > > > > Yes, I am actually saying that. > > Have the dividends made up for what you spent on the stock in the first > place? No, but that's irrelevant. > > Dividends and other income/expenses aside, the value of the stock does > > not affect how much cash I have on hand or in my bank account. > > True, but it affects how much cash you could get if you need to. When > the stock price drops, you have less ability to raise money. True, but that's a different matter. -- Ignore this sig.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-25 20:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <barmar-6AFDE3.20530125012013@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #38967 |
In article <michelle-20C735.15104625012013@news.eternal-september.org>, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote: > In article <barmar-53E9A8.16561025012013@news.eternal-september.org>, > Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > > > > > You haven't lost a cent because you haven't sold the stock. In > > > > > fact, you made money because Apple issued dividends. > > > > > > > > are you actually saying you make money when the share price drops by > > > > $267 per share as of right now (~40%) from its peak because it pays > > > > a paltry $2.65 in dividends? > > > > > > Yes, I am actually saying that. > > > > Have the dividends made up for what you spent on the stock in the first > > place? > > No, but that's irrelevant. > > > > Dividends and other income/expenses aside, the value of the stock does > > > not affect how much cash I have on hand or in my bank account. > > > > True, but it affects how much cash you could get if you need to. When > > the stock price drops, you have less ability to raise money. > > True, but that's a different matter. Why? Your wealth is essentially equivalent to how much "stuff" (and services) you can buy. If you own stock, you can buy stuff by cashing in the shares and then buying something with the money. If the price of the stock drops, you can't buy as much in that process. What's so special about "cash on hand"? And when you say that, do you include "cash in the bank"? You have to perform a transaction to get that into your hands, it's not much different from the transaction you have to do to sell stock or bonds. It's all fungible. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-25 19:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <michelle-FD6935.19595125012013@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #38974 |
In article <barmar-6AFDE3.20530125012013@news.eternal-september.org>, Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote: > > > > Dividends and other income/expenses aside, the value of the stock > > > > does not affect how much cash I have on hand or in my bank > > > > account. > > > > > > True, but it affects how much cash you could get if you need to. > > > When the stock price drops, you have less ability to raise money. > > > > True, but that's a different matter. > > Why? Your wealth is essentially equivalent to how much "stuff" (and > services) you can buy. But only if you sell the stock; if you don't sell it, you don't have that money. > What's so special about "cash on hand"? And when you say that, do you > include "cash in the bank"? You have to perform a transaction to get > that into your hands, it's not much different from the transaction you > have to do to sell stock or bonds. Yes, I include cash in the bank, cash in my mattress, etc. But the transaction to get cash out of my bank account is quite different from selling stocks. -- Ignore this sig.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-25 23:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <51035f0b$0$13431$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #38977 |
On 13-01-25 21:59, Michelle Steiner wrote: > Yes, I include cash in the bank, cash in my mattress, etc. But the > transaction to get cash out of my bank account is quite different from > selling stocks. If you goto the bank to get a loan, they look at your net current value. This isn't based on the price of AAPL shares you bought 10 years ago, it is based on the price TODAY. And a couple years later, when you go to renegotiate the loan, they will reevaluate your net current assets based on the price of your share on that day. So, if you were approved for a loan based on your ownership of X shares of APPL at $700, and you had to renegotiate that loan today when your net value has dropped as a result of APPL being at $450, then you may no longer qualify for the loan and the bank could force you to pay it back today. If, like Jolly Rogers, you have only invested a token amount just for fun because you love Apple, and that investkent is but a tiny fraction of your net value, then it has no impact on your dayt to day life and APPL could drop to $2 without impacting you. But do not think for a minute that this applies to everyone. There are people who invested real sums of money in AAPL. And yes, there are people who put in sums of money with intenstions of progresively seeling the stock as it rises. (keeping you capital value constant). As the stock drops, you still need to buy food which costs the same. So you needto sell more shares and your total capital value drops.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-26 05:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <f_CdnZoTsphlMZ7MnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #38980 |
In article <51035f0b$0$13431$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com>, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 13-01-25 21:59, Michelle Steiner wrote: > > > Yes, I include cash in the bank, cash in my mattress, etc. But the > > transaction to get cash out of my bank account is quite different from > > selling stocks. > > > If you goto the bank to get a loan, they look at your net current value. > This isn't based on the price of AAPL shares you bought 10 years ago, it > is based on the price TODAY. > > And a couple years later, when you go to renegotiate the loan, they will > reevaluate your net current assets based on the price of your share on > that day. Of course it is based on what the shares you bought 10 years ago cost. Net current value is price now minus price paid. Using 1-26 prices, it would have gone from $14.24 to $439.88 during that time frame. You would be in great shape having lost a lot less value, thus the reason to INVEST for longer terms. That is 3135% (assuming I did the math right, always a concern) increase. -- America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."-- Claire Wolfe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system
csiph-web