They would be thrilled if they are actual long term shareholders, such as myself, and not traders.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Shares Drop Below $100 Amid Wider Stock Market Downturn [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They would be thrilled if they are actual long term shareholders, such as myself, and not traders.
Of course that isn't bold. If you hold stock and don't sell it, then any losses or profits are virtual. You convert when you sell. So if you don't sell you don't gain or lose. It is very simple really and knowledge of his portfolio is not needed.
Then why don't they do it now if it such a good idea for the shareholders? I'm sure they have great consultation in cash management and investment, so if it were such a great idea they would do that immediately. I guess the answer is that a more controlled buy back as they are doing is a much better long term strategy than just doing it all immediately. Most likely the reserve some of the needed capital also for big bets that none of us know about.
you said "you didn't lose anything if you didn't sell" am i correct?
That statement could be wrong on so many levels. I understand that if he did nothing then there is neither money physically gained or physically lost but the value of his portfolio WHEN the numbers go down would be less than < that of which he could have potentially had if he would have sold before the virtual numbers went down given that he bought at a time before his shares went up.
swingerofbirch
macrumors 68040
Something tells me you own Apple stock, lol. Or you're just really optimistic about Apple improving Apple Music. So far it seems a dollar short and a day late.
since the beginning of time the big companies have ate the smaller ones. apple has the money to pull artists and drain the competition.
Already downloaded.
Very intuitive, easy to use app. Really like the 0 commission fees. Thanks for sharing.
On how many levels is it wrong? You confirm exactly what I said in my previous post:
hold stock and don't sell- long term investing. Vs people who sell before a "crash" and re-buy: buy and sell.
Which way is beneficial? Does it largely dependent on the portfolio or personal investment strategy? Which one actually maximizes return?
Anyone have any concrete evidence than opinion on this matter?
Which way is beneficial? Does it largely dependent on the portfolio or personal investment strategy? Which one actually maximizes return?
Anyone have any concrete evidence than opinion on this matter?
There are very few people that can predict a crash and sell in time. What I look for are solid businesses that have a well defined competitive advantage in their market and that show good business execution. I usually buy those after a general dip in the market, if the particular business is not that much affected by the current dip. The thing that happens is that many people dump their stock during these crashes, even though the companies that they are holding might not be affected by the actual problem. An example here: I hold stock in QURE, look it up. It is a biotech with no business in China and therefore only indirectly affected by the Chinese market performance. The stock dipped with the rest of the market and rebounded quite quickly again.
I believe in long term investment, so I don't do a great deal of trades. However you need a certain amount of turnover in your portfolio to generate cash for future trades (if you don't want to keep feeding in external money). I started out about 8 years ago with 5000 euros and with a many lucky (one major lucky one) and many well executed trades I'm now close to 100000 euros in portfolio value without any major intermediate cash injections. I bought most stock during the financial crisis. We have a saying in the Netherlands that you need to buy stock when blood is running down Wall Street. That was Monday.
Last edited:
Wow that's quite a return
. It also helped that you invested in a time when the market took a down turn and now it's re-bounded back and doubled. What if everybody followed this philosophy? Will there be any winners or losers? Can everyone be winners? What if most people held on to their stocks? (Which I guess it's not possible as most people want to cash out their earnings at certain periods.)
Can I ask how often do you trade?
Sorry if it's too many questions.
"There is no question about it — we are in a debt bubble. But this is part of the crisis. Government debt has been perceived as “safe” so it has sucked in capital from the private sector. This has reduced investment that creates jobs and we see this trend fueling the rise in unemployment among the youth because governments are competing for capital that should be expanding the economy. This is all part of the crisis we face; we are one trend behind this shift on the horizon from public back to private.
The last Sovereign Debt Crisis at the national government level was in 1931. Hello world! It’stime again very soon. The implosion in equities is helping to create that bond bubble. Welcome to the final collapse of Marxism." – Martin Armstrong
The last Sovereign Debt Crisis at the national government level was in 1931. Hello world! It’stime again very soon. The implosion in equities is helping to create that bond bubble. Welcome to the final collapse of Marxism." – Martin Armstrong
Wow that's quite a return
What if everybody followed this philosophy? Will there be any winners or losers? Can everyone be winners? What if most people held on to their stocks? (Which I guess it's not possible as most people want to cash out their earnings at certain periods.)
Can I ask how often do you trade?
Sorry if it's too many questions.
I was extremely lucky with QURE. I bought them at 0.033 euros when the company was still called AMT. they are now valued at 25 euros although there was a reverse split. I also had a lucky hand in AAPL like many others here. I also trade in derivatives that amplify the fluctuations of the underlying stock. So every 1% AAPL goes up, my derivative goes along with it by 4%. The same effect happens of course I'm the other direction.
I make trades about every two days on average, sometimes a bit more, sometimes a bit less.
The likelihood of everyone following the same investment strategy is pretty low, considering the breadth of financial constructs and investment theories (fundamental analysis and technical analysis etc). So the scenarios that you ask for are very unlikely to occur.
I'm confused. I thought you do long term investment. Why do you trade so often? I thought you were advocating buy and hold (long term) as oppose to buy and sell short term. Long term as in > 5 years, right?
Man i wish i would have jumped in sooner, i was in at 107. Knowing what this company is capable of makes me feel more comfy about that intro mark.
I also picked up Facebook on the low. That is a company that holds my interest!
I missed your post for some reason. I know I'm late but I felt I should respond to this. Your statement is somewhat correct, but the basis is not. What you describe is not 'capitalism' but rather 'mercantilism'. Its the last step before true fascism, I believe, which is a path we're quite far along at this point.
Also, subsidies are not proper price controls. A proper price control adds a ceiling or floor to a given market. A price control can cause a shortage by removing the profit incentive to enter a market. The "no gouging" decrees that usually show up after a disaster are a great example. If the decrees stop someone from charging $400 for a $200 AC generator, or $20 for a $5 case of water, then entrepreneurs will decline to bring additional supply into a needed area. Since demand is many times higher than normal, a shortage results. With no price ceiling, there is more incentive for people to risk capital by bringing in more supplies through difficult terrain, and then the demand will get satisfied much quicker.
A subsidy doesn't add these boundaries. Rather it provides a cushion to a supplier that distorts market signals and reduces risk. Such distortion leads to inaccurate capital expenditure in markets that may not have a need. Both controls and subsidies are wrong. However, this has nothing to do with Apple using tax laws to protect profits and your statement to that effect is a non sequitur. Apple has an obligation to their shareholders to reduce tax exposure just like any other liability. The tax code itself says that every US taxpayer can use the laws to pay the least amount of taxes possible. Unfortunately, Apple is prevented from bringing their money home by these ridiculous laws, otherwise they could be using that money here in America, creating jobs and investing in infrastructure.
Uh oh. The miserable shareholders will be freaking out. Time to find cheaper slave labor. Time to cut costs, reduce benefits, find an area of the world that's more ripe for exploitation of resources.
This just won't do. Cmon now people, let's figure this out.
This just won't do. Cmon now people, let's figure this out.
Nasdaq was up 100. Tech earnings were great like Amazon and Google. Let's see what happens with Apple next week.