One worm, maybe two in the Apple? Does that a leaky core make or a leaky stock?

[SeaKing]

Originally Posted by tompe

I seem to remember reading that it is a selling strategy to just deliver the amount of units so you sell out. So I do not think the conclusion is valid here.

I think that normally when dealing with volume and POS items (not ordered) the usual idea is to always have some available to be picked up by the customer that happens by. That doesn't' mean you have a hundred available at all times at every store, but say 2 to 4 and then if a store sells out, you can give a close by point to pick another up. Don't let the customer walk out empty handed without information on how to get one quick.

[Ralph Sir Edward]

In the end, it doesn't matter...It is obvious that the gadget world is not going to be monolithic any more, unlike it appeared to be becoming in around 2009-2010.

You want Apple, buy Apple... You don't like Apple, you buy Android, or some of the also-rans. Apple isn't going to control the gadget world, just be a player in it. A big player, unlike the 1990's, but still merely a player in the space.

If you buy Apple stock expecting monopoly profits, over time, well, it isn't gonna happen...

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by haydnfan

There are no facts in that "article", only vague claims of "analysts", sources? From what I've seen Apple moved a ton of ipad minis, poor price and screen be darned.

This is iPple. The brand was built on only vague claims that seldom held up in the light of day...so that is all it will take for iPple to fall.

Do you want a graph of the sad life cycle of iPple? Not sure it is legal to post as it looks like a rounded rectangle....so they may sue...

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Phogg

This is iPple. The brand was built on only vague claims that seldom held up in the light of day...so that is all it will take for iPple to fall.

Do you want a graph of the sad life cycle of iPple? Not sure it is legal to post as it looks like a rounded rectangle....so they may sue...

[HarryT]

Sad lifecycle? A company with over $100bn in cash in the bank, whose stock price has risen 30-odd percent in the last year alone? That kind of "sadness" I could live with.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sad lifecycle? A company with over $100bn in cash in the bank, whose stock price has risen 30-odd percent in the last year alone? That kind of "sadness" I could live with.

It did drop a significant amount in the last few months though...

looks like it started the year at about 406 and is now at 510 was up to 700+ in late Sept.

https://www.google.com/finance?clien...2qQHEag&q=aapl

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by kennyc

It did drop a significant amount in the last few months though...

Simple profit-taking ahead of New Year changes in US tax law, according to what I've read. It's still up over 30% on the start of 2012, I believe.

[SeaKing]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sad lifecycle? A company with over $100bn in cash in the bank, whose stock price has risen 30-odd percent in the last year alone? That kind of "sadness" I could live with.

No one disputes the company has made out like a bandit, Harry.
Also about 120B liquid.
Except for the Apple Map executives, everyone at Apple is exceedingly happy, and prosperous.

That said, I will tread no further on the ice.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by SeaKing

That said, I will tread no further on the ice.

Wise words

Shari

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Simple profit-taking ahead of New Year changes in US tax law, according to what I've read.

You mean the changes in US tax law that may or may not take effect, or may be effective for just a couple days?

If it was simple like this, the people coming up with these after the fact explanations would already all be billionaires from their short-selling. (Maybe some are, but I doubt more than the law of averages predicts.)

A quick check shows Whirlpool, the giant US appliance maker, has doubled in value this year with no similar profit-taking. Why's that? (Answer: Impossible to say for sure.)

I'm not saying Apple is in trouble. Apple market cap is still the highest of any company in the world. I'm just questioning what you read

[Penforhire]

Steve, you need to hold a stock for at least a year to use the lower capital gains tax. If it doubled "this year" that is the awfully obvious reason why there is no selling rush.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

Steve, you need to hold a stock for at least a year to use the lower capital gains tax. If it doubled "this year" that is the awfully obvious reason why there is no selling rush.

Whirlpool is close to a five year high, so I'd think most people who have been holding it for at least a year are sitting on potential profits. Undoubtedly there is another just-so story to explain this, but since you can't predict future performance based on past performance, that story for why Whirlpool's price has held up will have no more validity than the story of why Apple lost thirty percent.

If there was an awfully obvious reason why a stock was going to go up or down, informed people would buy or short-sell the stock in advance of that awfully obvious move, and, as a result, there would be no awfully obvious price change inflection we could explain. Or maybe there was an obvious starting point -- the minute it was clear Congress would likely pass the legislation (Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010) setting the fiscal cliff deadline. So why didn't Apple stock go down 20-30 percent in late 2010, which it did not? Did any non-Pollyanna who reads newspapers really think in December 2010 that we wouldn't be exactly where we are today with the December 31, 2012 deadline? I don't see how.

The bulk of academic economists believe in some variation on the random walk/efficient market hypothesis. A lot of economists do criticize over-strong forms of the efficient market hypothesis, but not to such an extent as to allow for after-the-fact storymaking to explain stock market moves.

As as class, I tend to like academic economists, and to not like stockbrokers. Maybe it is a prejudice. Now what can I say to bring this back to mobile reading?

EDIT: Some reader is going to equate, in their mind, the phrase "academic economist" above with Paul Krugman. That was not the intent. Krugman's New York Times columns, for better or worse, are punditry, not economics. It's almost a coincidence he's both a Princeton economist and a pundit.

[Penforhire]

You REALLY want to compare a white-goods company with a market cap of less than $8B against a tech company with a market cap over $475B ?! C'mon, Apple is FAR more widely held and has always been an emotional stock. All you naysayers will be eating P/E crow next year, as you have for how many years now? Since before the first iPhone.

I won't be bitter if Samsung thrives. Why are you so bitter about Apple? They make many desirable overpriced products.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

--- Why are you so bitter about Apple? They make many desirable overpriced products.

We are all concerned about their many hoodwinked customers.

"Send not for whom the bell..."

[afv011]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

They make many desirable overpriced products.

Trendy, like a status icon. That's why the covers have the window on the back, so owners can broadcast to the winds that they've become a member of the club. "Me too! Me too"!.