Agip no, as I said I would btfd in a heartbeat.
For me it’s about finding out what might work in the future, and why. On inflation, never mind the various measures and hedonics, substitution, seasonality, etc, maybe listen to people like Summers and the IMF, who tell you the same thing I am saying, much to Yellen’s disapproval. And Summers is a self-described progressive.
As far as markets and liquidity go, although the money supply has contracted in the very recent past, over the past 10 years it has exploded.
And as far as gdp goes, the government now spends something like $2 to get a $1 increase in gdp. That’s an awesome roi.
It increasingly seems to me that everything can be characterized as an “inflation hedge”, the equity markets included. In fact, the US markets might be the best of the bunch, better than foreign markets, gold, bonds, etc.
I am not abandoning the markets, I am just trying to distill them to their essence, to remove noise from the signal. To me, these policy-derived macro forces are the fundamentals, not business activities. Ours is a mature (maybe overly-mature) market, and at this stage of its life, different things matter fundamentally than mattered in 1950 or 1980.
-
00
-
seattle prattle wrote:
Apple earnings were good enough to ignite after hours trading.
It seems the revenues from their services division is a bright spot (App Store, Apple Pay, and subscription services like Apple TV+ and Apple Music..). Also much anticipated rather large stock buyback announcement.
Currently up about 6% in after hours for a 8.5% rise on the day.
Should boost the whole sector tomorrow.
Nice to see this laggard of the Mag 7 get a little boost here.
No worries. Igy will have some excuse for being wrong again. Probs the govt.
10 -
Apple, like I said, is no longer a high growth company, that is evident with dividend increase and stock buyback record.
I will continue to add opportunistically to shorts on market rise. A break above 5115 will make me less enthusiastic to short.
11 -
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Apple, like I said, is no longer a high growth company, that is evident with dividend increase and stock buyback record.
I will continue to add opportunistically to shorts on market rise. A break above 5115 will make me less enthusiastic to short.
AAPL hasn't done much the last few years but go back 5 years and it was trading at 49. It is currently at 183 having gone up about 9% yesterday and after hours. Warren Buffet had about 50% of his fund in AAPL (down to 42% now) and that is good enough for me. That is good enough for me to keep buying it. Buffet? His fund is up about 5,000,000%. No one has come close to that.
10 -
Sally Vix wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Apple, like I said, is no longer a high growth company, that is evident with dividend increase and stock buyback record.
I will continue to add opportunistically to shorts on market rise. A break above 5115 will make me less enthusiastic to short.
AAPL hasn't done much the last few years but go back 5 years and it was trading at 49. It is currently at 183 having gone up about 9% yesterday and after hours. Warren Buffet had about 50% of his fund in AAPL (down to 42% now) and that is good enough for me. That is good enough for me to keep buying it. Buffet? His fund is up about 5,000,000%. No one has come close to that.
And how many years has Igy been saying AAPL is no longer a growth company? 20?
20 -
Sally Vix wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Apple, like I said, is no longer a high growth company, that is evident with dividend increase and stock buyback record.
I will continue to add opportunistically to shorts on market rise. A break above 5115 will make me less enthusiastic to short.
AAPL hasn't done much the last few years but go back 5 years and it was trading at 49. It is currently at 183 having gone up about 9% yesterday and after hours. Warren Buffet had about 50% of his fund in AAPL (down to 42% now) and that is good enough for me. That is good enough for me to keep buying it. Buffet? His fund is up about 5,000,000%. No one has come close to that.
Buffet makes mistakes like the rest of us.
"Since becoming CEO of Berkshire Hathaway in the mid-1960s, Buffett has overseen a greater than 4,200,000% return on his company's Class A shares (BRK.A).
However, the Oracle of Omaha isn't perfect. He's currently overseeing aggregate unrealized losses of $15.8 billion from four well-known holdings."00 -
agip wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:Nic
AAPL hasn't done much the last few years but go back 5 years and it was trading at 49. It is currently at 183 having gone up about 9% yesterday and after hours. Warren Buffet had about 50% of his fund in AAPL (down to 42% now) and that is good enough for me. That is good enough for me to keep buying it. Buffet? His fund is up about 5,000,000%. No one has come close to that.
Buffet makes mistakes like the rest of us.
"Since becoming CEO of Berkshire Hathaway in the mid-1960s, Buffett has overseen a greater than 4,200,000% return on his company's Class A shares (BRK.A).
However, the Oracle of Omaha isn't perfect. He's currently overseeing aggregate unrealized losses of $15.8 billion from four well-known holdings."Nice one, Agip.
10 -
Sally Vix wrote:
agip wrote:
Buffet makes mistakes like the rest of us.
"Since becoming CEO of Berkshire Hathaway in the mid-1960s, Buffett has overseen a greater than 4,200,000% return on his company's Class A shares (BRK.A).
However, the Oracle of Omaha isn't perfect. He's currently overseeing aggregate unrealized losses of $15.8 billion from four well-known holdings."Nice one, Agip.
I would really like to see how the makeup of his fund transitioned over the decades, e.g., when he got out of MSFT and went big on AAPL.
00 -
Prior to 1982, buybacks were an illegal market manipulation mechanism.
Now they’re celebrated. 😔
00 -
M.a.s.e.r. wrote:
Prior to 1982, buybacks were an illegal market manipulation mechanism.
Now they’re celebrated. 😔
maser are you SURE you aren't letting your advancing age get in the way of your view of the world? Because citing how things were better 42 years ago because of a different accounting rule is a classic example of the genre.
20 -
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Apple, like I said, is no longer a high growth company, that is evident with dividend increase and stock buyback record.
”Apple is forecast to grow earnings and revenue by 4.7% and 4.3% per annum respectively. EPS is expected to grow by 6.4% per annum. Return on equity is forecast to be 202.3% in 3 years.”
30 -
Trews wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Apple, like I said, is no longer a high growth company, that is evident with dividend increase and stock buyback record.
”Apple is forecast to grow earnings and revenue by 4.7% and 4.3% per annum respectively. EPS is expected to grow by 6.4% per annum. Return on equity is forecast to be 202.3% in 3 years.”
yeah I agree Apple is no longer a growth stock. These kinds of growth do not justify Apples' valuation. EPS growth is probably a good deal from buybacks, not organic growth.
I think the company probably in for some tough years in terms of stock price. It's a great company but the law of big numbers will hit it pretty hard.
The stock is the same price as it was at the end of 2021.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.00 -
Trews wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Apple, like I said, is no longer a high growth company, that is evident with dividend increase and stock buyback record.
”Apple is forecast to grow earnings and revenue by 4.7% and 4.3% per annum respectively. EPS is expected to grow by 6.4% per annum. Return on equity is forecast to be 202.3% in 3 years.”
Warren Buffet has 42% of his fun in AAPL and Igy says AAPL is no longer a growth stock. Hmmm - I think I will go with Buffet on this one.
10 -
agip wrote:
Trews wrote:
”Apple is forecast to grow earnings and revenue by 4.7% and 4.3% per annum respectively. EPS is expected to grow by 6.4% per annum. Return on equity is forecast to be 202.3% in 3 years.”
yeah I agree Apple is no longer a growth stock. These kinds of growth do not justify Apples' valuation. EPS growth is probably a good deal from buybacks, not organic growth.
I think the company probably in for some tough years in terms of stock price. It's a great company but the law of big numbers will hit it pretty hard.
The stock is the same price as it was at the end of 2021.
Same price as when Covid was happening. Was 49 5 years ago and 186 now. STILL a growth stock.
00 -
Sally Vix wrote:
agip wrote:
yeah I agree Apple is no longer a growth stock. These kinds of growth do not justify Apples' valuation. EPS growth is probably a good deal from buybacks, not organic growth.
I think the company probably in for some tough years in terms of stock price. It's a great company but the law of big numbers will hit it pretty hard.
The stock is the same price as it was at the end of 2021.
Same price as when Covid was happening. Was 49 5 years ago and 186 now. STILL a growth stock.
sally there's nothing really wrong with not being a growth stock. it just means it has to eke out improvement with cost controls, etc.
for a long time Buffet was considered a value investor, shunning growth stocks.
but...i think a lot of people own apple thinking it will have double digit organic growth...but that's probably not going to happen. It may be sold off by growth investors. Question is if value guys will step in to buy the shares.
"growth" refers to its financial statements, not its stock price. Lack of sales growth. It doesn't refer to how the stock price does.
This post was edited 5 minutes after it was posted.10 -
agip wrote:
M.a.s.e.r. wrote:
Prior to 1982, buybacks were an illegal market manipulation mechanism.
Now they’re celebrated. 😔
maser are you SURE you aren't letting your advancing age get in the way of your view of the world? Because citing how things were better 42 years ago because of a different accounting rule is a classic example of the genre.
Agip this society can be described as having been devolving because of the following mechanism of many social developments: duly enacted laws and rules are ignored until the point at which the illegal becomes a “settled expectation”, at which point the law changes to reflect the (formerly criminal) reality on the ground.
We see this all the time in the financial sector, and now the mentality has spread to other areas of society.
Yes things should evolve, but you always have to ask what was the original reason, intent, purpose of the prohibition. Yes there are restrictions on buybacks, but imo the basic principles underlying their former prohibition were, and remain, sound.
00 -
M.a.s.e.r. wrote:
agip wrote:
maser are you SURE you aren't letting your advancing age get in the way of your view of the world? Because citing how things were better 42 years ago because of a different accounting rule is a classic example of the genre.
Agip this society can be described as having been devolving because of the following mechanism of many social developments: duly enacted laws and rules are ignored until the point at which the illegal becomes a “settled expectation”, at which point the law changes to reflect the (formerly criminal) reality on the ground.
We see this all the time in the financial sector, and now the mentality has spread to other areas of society.
Yes things should evolve, but you always have to ask what was the original reason, intent, purpose of the prohibition. Yes there are restrictions on buybacks, but imo the basic principles underlying their former prohibition were, and remain, sound.
us codgers have been saying this for thousands and thousands of years.
anyway, accounting rules have become much much tougher than they were in the past. There is less fraud and cheating in corporate accounting now than in the past. That's one reason companies get higher valuations now - we can trust their financials to a higher degree now vs the past.
But sure we can debate buybacks specifically. I don't have much of an opinion here. On the face of it, markets are so much more liquid and transparent now vs the pre-1982 era that it's very hard to see a company significantly manipulating its stock these days via the constant bid of a buyback.
In the past, with market makers/specialists on the floor of the stock exchange deciding stock prices...well ok there was a lot of room for buybacks manipulating prices. But now, with no more specialists on the floor and markets so much larger and liquid...eh. I don't see the problem. Especially with a company the monstrous size of Apple.
This post was edited 10 minutes after it was posted.00 -
Buybacks are not an "accounting rule".
00 -
Sally Vix wrote:
agip wrote:
yeah I agree Apple is no longer a growth stock. These kinds of growth do not justify Apples' valuation. EPS growth is probably a good deal from buybacks, not organic growth.
I think the company probably in for some tough years in terms of stock price. It's a great company but the law of big numbers will hit it pretty hard.
The stock is the same price as it was at the end of 2021.
Same price as when Covid was happening. Was 49 5 years ago and 186 now. STILL a growth stock.
I doubt Buffett drives a car or Berkshire.
01 -
Yields down again today, except at the very short end.
lol the "jobs numbers", always faked and massively "revised" in the following months, were finally massaged to give a number that would be conducive to a cut...just in time for the coming election.
This could be another exception year to the sell in May and go away norm.
00
