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

[Kuciwalker]

It was pretty ****ing irrational at the time, too. While the dot-coms were massively overvalued during the dot-com bubble, AAPL is overvalued now.

Your own lack of foresight and understanding of how businesses actually operate probably explains why you can't see it as overvalued now. You will be one of those people who, in 5 years, looks back at AAPL and says "in retrospect, it looked pretty irrational to buy it at >$350".

Sure, it's entirely possible that with 5 years of new information the market's prediction will look wrong. And it's just as possible that you will look like a moron (especially since you already look pretty dumb). I seem to recall you calling AAPL overpriced at $200, years ago...

And yet no one cares about that question, not the least of which is me.

The fact that you can't see the relevance is distressing - every time we have one of these threads, I am surprised even more how bad you are at critical thinking.

1) Asher claims that he's able to conclusively say that AAPL is overvalued at $350.
2) Kuci claims that Asher can't justifiably disagree with the market price for any stock.

It's a ****ing syllogism that if (2) is true than (1) is false.

The fact that you're using phrases like "ex ante" truly exposes your tactic here -- if you continually to act like a bore with pointlessly esoteric terms, people will just give up...

If you think "ex ante" is esoteric then I am sorry you couldn't enjoy the benefits of a decent school system.

Oh, you can't seriously believe this, can you?

Human psychology and behaviour affect every aspect of human behaviour. The stock market is simply a marketplace for humans (and their AI brethren) to trade stocks. You'd have to be a complete and utter moron to think that marketplaces where humans are trading things are not affected by human psychology and behaviour

A moron, or correct. You don't seem to be able to argue anything more than "humans are irrational lalalalala this justifies any conclusion I want".

If you want to be taken seriously on this site, Kuci, I strongly suggest you stop making an ass out of yourself.

I should learn from your experience. Back when we had people like Agathon to argue with, you looked downright intelligent, but recently you just haven't been able to catch a break.

[Kuciwalker]

I am quite clearly referring to the market price. Your answer is "we don't know anything!" so we can't make a judgment on if the stock is a good investment.

That is amazingly helpful.

That's the entire ****ing point. The entire thesis is that we can't make a judgment. If I were able to be "helpful" answering questions about which stocks you should buy then I would be filthy rich and not letting y'all in on the secret.

[Asher]

Sure, it's entirely possible that with 5 years of new information the market's prediction will look wrong.

The information is already out there now. The problem is most investors can't see it because they don't understand the market AAPL operates in.

And it's just as possible that you will look like a moron (especially since you already look pretty dumb). I seem to recall you calling AAPL overpriced at $200, years ago...

And it was. Remember that it regressed shortly after that, exactly as I said it would. The fact that it's on a bubble again is irrelevant.

The fact that you can't see the relevance is distressing - every time we have one of these threads, I am surprised even more how bad you are at critical thinking.

1) Asher claims that he's able to conclusively say that AAPL is overvalued at $350.

Again, your own failure to read bites you in the ass.

I did NOT claim to UNIVERSALLY CLAIM AAPL is overpriced. I did no say I could CONCLUSIVELY claim. I am obviously giving my opinion on the stock.

2) Kuci claims that Asher can't justifiably disagree with the market price for any stock.

It's a ****ing syllogism that if (2) is true than (1) is false.

What the big disconnect here is your social defects are preventing you from comprehending the discussion you are participating in.

If you think "ex ante" is esoteric then I am sorry you couldn't enjoy the benefits of a decent school system.

"ex ante" is esoteric for an OTF. The fact that you don't think it's esoteric just further illustrates how disconnected you are from the rest of humanity.

A moron, or correct. You don't seem to be able to argue anything more than "humans are irrational lalalalala this justifies any conclusion I want".

Irrational actors will never have fully rational results.

The stock market isn't a perfect machine or model, it's a system with irrational actors making judgment calls. It's not predictable, it's certainly not rational.

I should learn from your experience. Back when we had people like Agathon to argue with, you looked downright intelligent, but recently you just haven't been able to catch a break.

That's only because you've become increasingly incapable of understanding conversations we have. You're so hellbent on appearing intelligent, to outgrow everyone's mental image of you as a socially awkward, arrogant kid that you're aggressively trying to debate things that simply aren't there in the thread, throwing in ridiculous phrases in a bid to cement your status as intellectual heavyweight. It's backfiring.

If only you had known ex ante it would end like this...

[Kuciwalker]

You want to know why it's wrong? Because investors were irrational.

Investors believed the magical growth in all of these new markets would continue growing apace, good times everyone!! When it started slowing down, some people started panicking and dumping tech stocks. That caused others to panic and dump. Which caused others to panic and dump...and pop goes the bubble.

And what I'm saying is I believe AAPL is in exactly the same spot. They've been making money off tons of new product categories and disruptive technologies, and investors keep investing because they are predicting it'll keep happening. But they will be wrong, and the train will stop. There's only so many disruptive technologies AAPL can introduce to make a profit off of. Their business model is pretty much fundamentally flawed for longevity, they are currently on a boom/bust cycle where the booms offset the busts because of new products disrupting the market. But what happens when those runs out? The busts are catching up to them.

If this logic really works, why didn't someone use it to get incredibly wealthy in 2000, and then keep using it to get even richer over the past decade? Why isn't that person so wealthy by now that he can actually bring Apple's price back down to what it should be by betting against it?

Huh? Not all of the people are on the bandwagon was it goes off the cliff. People see the cliff approaching and start jumping off, which sparks a panic and others start jumping off as well.

And yet this is empirically not what happens. Asset prices have almost zero momentum (they may have some over extremely short timeframes, but HFT is limiting even that). We constantly see asset prices instantly incorporate new information. e.g., see how the market behaves every time the Fed does someting even a little unexpected.

[Kuciwalker]

And it was. Remember that it regressed shortly after that, exactly as I said it would. The fact that it's on a bubble again is irrelevant.

Not at all. Had I taken your advice and gone short on AAPL then I would be out a LOT of money. Had I taken Agathon's advice I would have earned great returns.

[Asher]

I am quite clearly referring to the market price. Your answer is "we don't know anything!" so we can't make a judgment on if the stock is a good investment.

That is amazingly helpful.

That's the entire ****ing point. The entire thesis is that we can't make a judgment.

If your entire point is "no one can ever know the value of a stock" then you could just say that and look like a social ******, rather than typing all of these words and looking like a social ******.

OF COURSE no one can definitively, conclusively state the precise value of a stock. WE ALL, as investors, estimate the value of the stock and buy things we believe are below the value, and sell things we believe are above. That is how the stock market works.

You are so oblivious, it's unbelievable...

[Asher]

And it was. Remember that it regressed shortly after that, exactly as I said it would. The fact that it's on a bubble again is irrelevant.

Not at all. Had I taken your advice and gone short on AAPL then I would be out a LOT of money. Had I taken Agathon's advice I would have earned great returns.

How so? If you sold it when I said it was, and bought it up once it tanked shortly after, you could've MADE a lot of money. Do you understand this at all?

The fact that you hold AAPL stock (judging from your comments) easily explains your floundering in this thread.

[Kuciwalker]

Again, your own failure to read bites you in the ass.

I did NOT claim to UNIVERSALLY CLAIM AAPL is overpriced. I did no say I could CONCLUSIVELY claim. I am obviously giving my opinion on the stock.

And your opinion has at best even odds of turning out correct, given the information available.

The things you are looking at - industry data, etc. - contain less information than the stock price.

Irrational actors will never have fully rational results.

The stock market isn't a perfect machine or model, it's a system with irrational actors making judgment calls. It's not predictable, it's certainly not rational.

Not all of the actors are irrational. A few of them are rational. Just enough of them are rational that the entire market is efficient.

[Hauldren Collider]

You have no ****ing idea what I'm talking about because you're a pedantic *****.

While I 100% agree with you that Kuciwalker is often pedantic to the point of absurdity, nothing he's said here is pedantic in the slightest...you should save that particular epithet for when it is actually appropriate.

[Asher]

If this logic really works, why didn't someone use it to get incredibly wealthy in 2000, and then keep using it to get even richer over the past decade?

Many people did, including my father.

Why isn't that person so wealthy by now that he can actually bring Apple's price back down to what it should be by betting against it?

Oh jesus christ, you kill me...

And yet this is empirically not what happens.

That's exactly what happens in every stock market crash or bubble burst, Kuci...

[Kuciwalker]

How so? If you sold it when I said it was, and bought it up once it tanked shortly after, you could've MADE a lot of money. Do you understand this at all?

The fact that you hold AAPL stock (judging from your comments) easily explains your floundering in this thread.

Are you an idiot? Did you miss the dozen times that I said I would never buy an individual stock? I don't own ANY individual stocks, period. 100% of my financial assets are in index funds.

[Asher]

Not all of the actors are irrational. A few of them are rational. Just enough of them are rational that the entire market is efficient.

Yeah, go ahead and keep claiming this. Then use it to explain the dot-com bubble again. I enjoy that part.

[Hauldren Collider]

The information is already out there now. The problem is most investors can't see it because they don't understand the market AAPL operates in.

If you're so smart about tech markets why don't you ****ing become an investor and start raking in billions? It's not like you have to be born into some New York City aristocracy.

[Asher]

Are you an idiot? Did you miss the dozen times that I said I would never buy an individual stock? I don't own ANY individual stocks, period. 100% of my financial assets are in index funds.

I'm not an idiot, but it's mighty clear you are.

You've mentioned being heavily exposed to technology stocks like I am (I've mentioned I do own stocks by my own company, a tech company). I don't think it's clear why you would invest in more tech-heavy mutual funds than anyone else, so your comment is bizarre at best.

You also said you would lose money if you took my AAPL advice. If you didn't own any AAPL stock and you never would invest in stocks, that statement is equally bizarre...

[Asher]

If you're so smart about tech markets why don't you ****ing become an investor and start raking in billions? It's not like you have to be born into some New York City aristocracy.

I've got a 40% ROI since I started investing in 2006.

You need money to make money, HC. I'm only recently pouring big bucks into investments. And I do plan to make money. My father has made a ton of money over the years in investing, it's basically all he does but he's damn good at it and he's teaching me the ropes.