It's somewhat amusing to see Apple throw away market leadership now, just like it did in the 80s

[Asher]

Obviously a lot of people are perceiving gold to have some utility useful to them or else the value wouldn't be so high.

Just like AAPL has a lot of perceived future earnings.

You and Kuci seem to be taking the mind-numbingly complicated opinion of "if it's value is high, obviously it has utility". You both don't seem to comprehend my point.

I don't think they do. I think Gold is more or less useless. I think AAPL stock is massively overvalued, there's no way they can turn out earnings in the future that could justify that price.

I think the fact that many idiots buy something, driving the price up, should not be used to justify the inflated price. It's a vicious cycle that leads to bubbles.

I'm sure Kuci was cheerleading and justifying the obscene dot-com share prices in 2000 as well.

Obviously a lot of people perceived dot-com stocks in 2000 to have some utility useful to them or else the value wouldn't be so high.

[Kuciwalker]

Asher, your logic does not work for asset prices (and commodities treated as assets). Irrational expectations of higher future earnings do not distort asset prices as long as they are not universal or near-universal.

[Kuciwalker]

I'm sure Kuci was cheerleading and justifying the obscene dot-com share prices in 2000 as well.

I didn't have any opinions on asset prices at all back in 2000...

[Kuciwalker]

To justifiably believe that an asset is mispriced you need to be smarter and have better information than all of the smartest and best-informed people at GS, etc.

[giblets]

Asher, your logic does not work for asset prices (and commodities treated as assets). Irrational expectations of higher future earnings do not distort asset prices as long as they are not universal or near-universal.

How is near-universal defined. Is it when there's enough stupid fanboys out there that their decision to own a lot of Apple stock can't be offset by smart people deciding to own less Apple stock?

[Al B. Sure!]

What I find amusing is that since Asher posted this thread, AAPL has fallen 2.5%

[Kuciwalker]

How is near-universal defined. Is it when there's enough stupid fanboys out there that their decision to own a lot of Apple stock can't be offset by smart people deciding to own less Apple stock?

Pretty much, but you need to remember that these smart people have access to billions of dollars in leverage and so are much more influential per capita.

[Aeson]

All assets are mispriced in some frame of reference due to imperfect information. Saying so doesn't mean I have to be smarter and better informed than other investors. That only applies if I try to specifically state in which direction and by how much in what time frame the asset is mispriced. Even then there's luck involved. So I don't have to be smarter necessarily. To wit, if 2 idiots flip a coin to determine who goes long and who goes short (equity, not derivatives) on a volatile commodity for a set time period, one of them is likely making a good investment.

[Al B. Sure!]

A put/call ratio greater than 1 means that the open interest in puts exceeds calls (here, on contracts with less than 3 months til expiry). Note that generally, there are more calls than puts bought so 1 does not usually mean a 'neutral' reading (so a put/call ratio of 1 is pessimistic).

Judging from that, the market is pessimistic with regards to AAPL and has been over the past 3 months.

[Asher]

To justifiably believe that an asset is mispriced you need to be smarter and have better information than all of the smartest and best-informed people at GS, etc.

I'm not convinced the people at GS know **** all about the industry AAPL is in.

90% of the time you listen to an analyst from any kind of bank, they say the most retarded things.

[Kuciwalker]

I'm surprised GS hasn't hired you yet, since they could make so much money if only they listened.

Maybe they're just hoping to get your labor for free by reading Apolyton.

[Egbert]

I'm not convinced the people at GS know **** all about the industry AAPL is in.

90% of the time you listen to an analyst from any kind of bank, they say the most retarded things.

There is some good stuff out there but the retarded stuff tends to be more memorable. I recall reading a report, from a major institution, mostly commenting on the US dollar and here is the gist of it:

"The US dollar has weakened against the Australian dollar because the Australian dollar has strengthened against the US dollar."

It went on to inform me that: "the US$ could weaken or strengthen against the A$ or remain much the same depending upon the factors that influence the exchange rate."

There was about two pages of this fluff, prepared for corporate clients. I read it all, for amusement.

[Asher]

I'm surprised GS hasn't hired you yet, since they could make so much money if only they listened.

Maybe they're just hoping to get your labor for free by reading Apolyton.

If the people GS hired to predict the future were any good at it, they wouldn't be working a salary (or bonus structure) at GS.

Was it GS or some other bank that last year predicted Android would overtake iOS in US marketshare by 2014?

[Al B. Sure!]

Well, this seems very relevant. It's a month old but we'll have to make due. Read it Asher and tell Kuci where you disagree:


Goldman-Sachs-AAPL-1-17-11 -

[Al B. Sure!]

I did point out though that over the past 3 months, using put/call ratios as a proxy for market sentiment, investors have been pessimistic with regards to AAPL. Of course, this may not be sustained and there could be a correction. Who knows?