Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #60322 > unrolled thread

Re: Chicken Little

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Chicken Little Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> - 2014-06-06 06:24 +0200
    Re: Chicken Little Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-06-05 22:12 -0700
      Re: Chicken Little FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2014-06-06 04:07 -0400
        Re: Chicken Little Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-06 13:49 +0000
        Re: Chicken Little Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2014-06-06 08:28 -0700
      Re: Chicken Little FPP <fredp151@gmail.com> - 2014-06-06 04:11 -0400
        Re: Chicken Little Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-06 13:52 +0000
          Re: Chicken Little nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-06-06 11:32 -0400
            Re: Chicken Little George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-06-06 15:44 -0500
            Re: Chicken Little George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-06-06 15:47 -0500
      Re: Chicken Little Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-06-06 10:23 +0100
        Re: Chicken Little Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-06 13:53 +0000
          Re: Chicken Little George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-06-06 15:42 -0500
            Re: Chicken Little Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> - 2014-06-07 13:15 +0200
              Re: Chicken Little Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-07 14:31 +0000
                Re: Chicken Little JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-06-07 13:29 -0400
              Re: Chicken Little George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-06-07 16:10 -0500
          Re: Chicken Little Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> - 2014-06-07 13:15 +0200
            Re: Chicken Little Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-06-07 14:20 +0000
            Re: Chicken Little "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-06-08 11:46 +1000
              Re: Chicken Little JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-06-08 14:13 -0400
                Re: Chicken Little "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-06-09 07:26 +1000
                  Re: Chicken Little George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-06-08 20:47 -0500
                    Re: Chicken Little "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-06-09 14:53 +1000
                      Re: Chicken Little JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-06-09 13:12 -0400
                        Re: Chicken Little George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-06-09 13:04 -0500
                          Re: Chicken Little Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-06-10 09:34 +1200
                        Re: Chicken Little "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2014-06-10 06:43 +1000
                Re: Chicken Little George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2014-06-08 20:45 -0500
      Re: Chicken Little Lloyd  E Parsons <lloydp21@live.com> - 2014-06-06 08:03 -0500
      Re: Chicken Little Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> - 2014-06-07 13:12 +0200

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#60516

On 14-06-07 21:46, Rod Speed wrote:

>> Are there any long-term investors these days?
> 
> Corse there are. 

A few years ago, the Wall Street Casino analysts were making self
serving predictions of AAPL going over $1000, the sky is the limit etc
etc. This attracted a lot of speculators for a quick buck.

Then, once the casino analysts reduced their exposure, having cashed in
on the speculation, they started to issue bad news about AAPL, and the
stock tanked from over $700 down to below $400. The speculators left.
And that left longer term investors.

So AAPL is much more of a blue chip stock these days than a speculative
one. However, it is still very affected by the news cycle. Wall Street
Casino Analysts could drive the price down with some bad news about
Apple so they could buy in at a low price, and then let it rise again.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60541

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>>> Are there any long-term investors these days?

>> Corse there are.

> A few years ago, the Wall Street Casino analysts were making self
> serving predictions of AAPL going over $1000, the sky is the limit
> etc etc. This attracted a lot of speculators for a quick buck.

> Then, once the casino analysts reduced their exposure, having cashed in
> on the speculation, they started to issue bad news about AAPL, and the
> stock tanked from over $700 down to below $400. The speculators left.
> And that left longer term investors.

> So AAPL is much more of a blue chip stock these days than a speculative
> one. However, it is still very affected by the news cycle. Wall Street
> Casino Analysts could drive the price down with some bad news about
> Apple so they could buy in at a low price, and then let it rise again.

Sure, but that's a quite separate issue to whether there are still long term 
investors. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60566

On 6/8/14 4:26 PM, in article bvk2p9FgrkdU1@mid.individual.net, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
> 
>>>> Are there any long-term investors these days?
> 
>>> Corse there are.
> 
>> A few years ago, the Wall Street Casino analysts were making self
>> serving predictions of AAPL going over $1000, the sky is the limit
>> etc etc. This attracted a lot of speculators for a quick buck.
> 
>> Then, once the casino analysts reduced their exposure, having cashed in
>> on the speculation, they started to issue bad news about AAPL, and the
>> stock tanked from over $700 down to below $400. The speculators left.
>> And that left longer term investors.
> 
>> So AAPL is much more of a blue chip stock these days than a speculative
>> one. However, it is still very affected by the news cycle. Wall Street
>> Casino Analysts could drive the price down with some bad news about
>> Apple so they could buy in at a low price, and then let it rise again.
> 
> Sure, but that's a quite separate issue to whether there are still long term
> investors. 
> 

You are talking to a wall of doubt, feared by bullshit. It is really SAD...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60575

George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote

>>>>> Are there any long-term investors these days?

>>>> Corse there are.

>>> A few years ago, the Wall Street Casino analysts were making self
>>> serving predictions of AAPL going over $1000, the sky is the limit
>>> etc etc. This attracted a lot of speculators for a quick buck.

>>> Then, once the casino analysts reduced their exposure, having cashed in
>>> on the speculation, they started to issue bad news about AAPL, and the
>>> stock tanked from over $700 down to below $400. The speculators left.
>>> And that left longer term investors.

>>> So AAPL is much more of a blue chip stock these days than a speculative
>>> one. However, it is still very affected by the news cycle. Wall Street
>>> Casino Analysts could drive the price down with some bad news about
>>> Apple so they could buy in at a low price, and then let it rise again.

>> Sure, but that's a quite separate issue to whether there are still long 
>> term
>> investors.

> You are talking to a wall of doubt, feared by bullshit. It is really 
> SAD...

He's not that bad. He just has some silly ideas at times, but not all that 
often.

I agree with your other comment about gambling and investment, but
he does have a point about how many of those in the industry operate. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60615

On 14-06-09 00:53, Rod Speed wrote:

> I agree with your other comment about gambling and investment, but
> he does have a point about how many of those in the industry operate. 

Institutional speculators have the ability to sway stocks. And they
toyed around with AAPL a lot in recent years, but has calmed down since.

Consider when a large Wall Street org leaked news that iPhone sales were
down because they saw some 3rd party report of Apple lowering component
purchases from Samsung.  They conviently forgot the well known news that
Apple was shifting purchases away from Samsung to other supliers and
made Apple look bad and drove AAPL down quite a bit.

Once the AAPL share price got to their liking, the suddently stopped the
endless stream if similar bad news and the stock price has since risen
at a natural pace without much speculation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60626

On 6/9/14 12:12 PM, in article
5395eaeb$0$58771$c3e8da3$12bcf670@news.astraweb.com, "JF Mezei"
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 14-06-09 00:53, Rod Speed wrote:
> 
>> I agree with your other comment about gambling and investment, but
>> he does have a point about how many of those in the industry operate.
> 
> Institutional speculators have the ability to sway stocks. And they
> toyed around with AAPL a lot in recent years, but has calmed down since.
> 
> Consider when a large Wall Street org leaked news that iPhone sales were
> down because they saw some 3rd party report of Apple lowering component
> purchases from Samsung.  They conviently forgot the well known news that
> Apple was shifting purchases away from Samsung to other supliers and
> made Apple look bad and drove AAPL down quite a bit.
> 
> Once the AAPL share price got to their liking, the suddently stopped the
> endless stream if similar bad news and the stock price has since risen
> at a natural pace without much speculation.
> 

'Shorts' take advantage of the human greed syndrome. I don't trade like
those bastards and stay in for the long term and buy on those dips. Now that
AAPL has done a 7 for 1 split, it will become more psychologically appealing
to the small investor, so expect it to cross over the Franklin Factor level
this month, if not sooner...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60643

In article <CFBB6164.AC2F9%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>, George Kerby
<ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/9/14 12:12 PM, in article
> 5395eaeb$0$58771$c3e8da3$12bcf670@news.astraweb.com, "JF Mezei"
> <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> > On 14-06-09 00:53, Rod Speed wrote:
> >> 
> >> I agree with your other comment about gambling and investment, but
> >> he does have a point about how many of those in the industry operate.
> > 
> > Institutional speculators have the ability to sway stocks. And they
> > toyed around with AAPL a lot in recent years, but has calmed down since.
> > 
> > Consider when a large Wall Street org leaked news that iPhone sales were
> > down because they saw some 3rd party report of Apple lowering component
> > purchases from Samsung.  They conviently forgot the well known news that
> > Apple was shifting purchases away from Samsung to other supliers and
> > made Apple look bad and drove AAPL down quite a bit.
> > 
> > Once the AAPL share price got to their liking, the suddently stopped the
> > endless stream if similar bad news and the stock price has since risen
> > at a natural pace without much speculation.
> 
> 'Shorts' take advantage of the human greed syndrome. I don't trade like
> those bastards and stay in for the long term and buy on those dips. Now that
> AAPL has done a 7 for 1 split, it will become more psychologically appealing
> to the small investor, so expect it to cross over the Franklin Factor level
> this month, if not sooner...

In today's news on MacRumors.com ...

      Apple Stock Splits 7-for-1, Opens at $92 With 
      All-Time High Just Over $100
      <http://www.macrumors.com/2014/06/09/apple-stock-7-1-split/>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60642

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>> I agree with your other comment about gambling and investment, but
>> he does have a point about how many of those in the industry operate.

> Institutional speculators have the ability to sway stocks. And they toyed
> around with AAPL a lot in recent years, but has calmed down since.

Sure, its always been one downside with the stockmarket.

Corse if you arent just doing long term investment, its not necessarily
a bad thing either, its movements in prices that allows you to profit.

> Consider when a large Wall Street org leaked news that iPhone sales were
> down because they saw some 3rd party report of Apple lowering component
> purchases from Samsung.  They conviently forgot the well known news that
> Apple was shifting purchases away from Samsung to other supliers and
> made Apple look bad and drove AAPL down quite a bit.

> Once the AAPL share price got to their liking, the suddently
> stopped the endless stream if similar bad news and the stock
> price has since risen at a natural pace without much speculation.

Sure, there will always be that sort of thing going on. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60564

On 6/8/14 1:13 PM, in article
5394a7d5$0$51459$c3e8da3$eb767761@news.astraweb.com, "JF Mezei"
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 14-06-07 21:46, Rod Speed wrote:
> 
>>> Are there any long-term investors these days?
>> 
>> Corse there are.
> 
> A few years ago, the Wall Street Casino analysts were making self
> serving predictions of AAPL going over $1000, the sky is the limit etc
> etc. This attracted a lot of speculators for a quick buck.
> 
> Then, once the casino analysts reduced their exposure, having cashed in
> on the speculation, they started to issue bad news about AAPL, and the
> stock tanked from over $700 down to below $400. The speculators left.
> And that left longer term investors.
> 
> So AAPL is much more of a blue chip stock these days than a speculative
> one. However, it is still very affected by the news cycle. Wall Street
> Casino Analysts could drive the price down with some bad news about
> Apple so they could buy in at a low price, and then let it rise again.
> 

You seem to have an extreme confusion between Investments and Gambling. You
REALLY need to GET OVER that BULLSHIT approach to putting yor $$$ into
something.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60343

On 2014-06-06 05:12:22 +0000, Michelle Steiner said:

> In article <6ig2p9ht5l290li6p0qh98t8na4slhp01k@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic
> <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>> Chicken Little is screaming that Apple is doomed because it didn't
>>> introduce any new hardware at the WWDC keynote this morning.
>> 
>> I'm sure geeks may feel that way, but Apple is in the mainstream now, and
>> mainstream, ordinary users don't need to see new hardware every six months. Or
>> even new software, for that matter.
> 
> That screaming is from "Wall Street analysts" and tech writers for
> magazines, newspapers, and web sites.  Geeks and ordinary users don't
> care all that much.

And the stories they write about Apple are a lot more interesting than 
the ones about the 'yet another Android device that is nearly the same 
as all other Android devices' ones they do.

-- 
Lloyd

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#60407

Michelle Steiner writes:

> That screaming is from "Wall Street analysts" and tech writers for
> magazines, newspapers, and web sites.  Geeks and ordinary users don't
> care all that much.

Analysts and tech writers are a different breed, too, and one that isn't
highly relevant. Analysts only care about the quarterly bottom line, and tech
writers only care about having new things to write about.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web