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

[Asher]

It depends what you mean by "good". If you mean "can predict with subpercent accuracy" then no. If it means "better than Asher, me, Kuci or almost anybody on the planet", then yes

Warren Buffett?

Yes, congratulations, you have mentioned one of the very few people in the world who MAY be able to significantly outperform the market. And due to his outperformance (on the order of a few percent a year over 50 years), he is one of the richest men in the world. Where are your tens of billions?

Read further up in the thread -- I don't buy individual stocks except when I'm given options or am otherwise granted them.

I very much agree with you that it's a fool's game to try to outperform the market, which is why I invest primarily in index funds (again, see further up in the thread).

I'm merely making a point that the people buying AAPL are going to be in for a rude surprise. The people who think I cannot possibly make such a prediction can jump up my ass, or jump up Loin's ass. I'm fairly confident I know far more about Apple and its future directions than 99.999% of the market, so the market consensus means **** all to me. I am not making the claim that I can figure out which stock will increase dramatically all of the time and make billions. I'm pointing out specific problems with AAPL's valuation.

Yes, millions of average people and thousands of professional investors have all laid real money on the line, and the current price is the aggregate of all of their opinions. I'll take their judgment over yours any day of the week.

Average people and professional investors don't know anything about technology futures or the direction AAPL is going in. "Trust in Steve Jobs" seems to be the current mantra. A bunch of ignoramuses making a consensus decision is not a terribly bright idea. These same millions of average people and thousands of professional investors thought eBay would be a $1000 stock and Pets.com would be an amazingly successful business.

Isn't it well established that large groups of people can make very stupid decisions?

[KrazyHorse]

My favorite quote from Sumner is "Good economists don't make predictions, they infer market predictions"

[Asher]

Why not? Is biology a soft science?

Why not what? Why is Economics not a science? That should be pretty evident.

[KrazyHorse]

I'm merely making a point that the people buying AAPL are going to be in for a rude surprise. The people who think I cannot possibly make such a prediction can jump up my ass, or jump up Loin's ass. I'm fairly confident I know far more about Apple and its future directions than 99.999% of the market, so the market consensus means **** all to me.

Why aren't you busy buying deep out-of-the-money puts on AAPL then?

[Asher]

Why aren't you busy buying deep out-of-the-money puts on AAPL then?

Because I'm about to buy a half million dollar house which requires a downpayment.

[KrazyHorse]

Average people and professional investors don't know anything about technology futures or the direction AAPL is going in. "Trust in Steve Jobs" seems to be the current mantra. A bunch of ignoramuses making a consensus decision is not a terribly bright idea. These same millions of average people and thousands of professional investors thought eBay would be a $1000 stock and Pets.com would be an amazingly successful business.

Uh, if there were no losses in the stock market then the EMH couldn't be true. Ex post of COURSE it is possible to find examples of stocks that were "overpriced". If that wasn't the case then everybody could just leverage up, buy stocks at random and make a killing.

This is once more demonstrating that you don't even understand what the EMH is

[KrazyHorse]

Because I'm about to buy a half million dollar house which requires a downpayment.

No, it's because despite your bluster you have the good sense to be nervous that perhaps you don't actually know something about AAPL that has escaped virtually all of the millions of other people who have looked at it. Whether or not this uncertainty is at a conscious level, I don't know.

[Asher]

Uh, if there were no losses in the stock market then the EMH couldn't be true. Ex post of COURSE it is possible to find examples of stocks that were "overpriced". If that wasn't the case then everybody could just leverage up, buy stocks at random and make a killing.

This is once more demonstrating that you don't even understand what the EMH is

I think you have lost sight about WTF I'm talking about. It's Kuci that keeps raving about the EMH. I'm just trying to ****ing say AAPL is overpriced, and I provided a whole bunch of business reasons behind it that no one has refuted.

I am not talking about the EMH. I am talking about AAPL being overpriced.

[Asher]

No, it's because despite your bluster you have the good sense to be nervous that perhaps you don't actually know something about AAPL that has escaped virtually all of the millions of other people who have looked at it. Whether or not this uncertainty is at a conscious level, I don't know.

More people decide not to buy AAPL stock than decide to buy it.

[Kuciwalker]

I think you have lost sight about WTF I'm talking about. It's Kuci that keeps raving about the EMH. I'm just trying to ****ing say AAPL is overpriced, and I provided a whole bunch of business reasons behind it that no one has refuted.

1) If the EMH is true then you are wrong.
2) I have refuted them, by pointing out that the market disagrees with you.

I am not talking about the EMH. I am talking about AAPL being overpriced.

The fact that you don't see the connection is the problem.

[KrazyHorse]

I think you have lost sight about WTF I'm talking about. It's Kuci that keeps raving about the EMH. I'm just trying to ****ing say AAPL is overpriced, and I provided a whole bunch of business reasons behind it that no one has refuted.

I am not talking about the EMH. I am talking about AAPL being overpriced.

You are talking about AAPL being overpriced, which implies that you believe your judgment is better than the millions of people who in aggregate have hundreds of billions of dollars riding on this.

You may know certain things about AAPL that only a few thousand people know. However, they almost certainly know more IN AGGREGATE than you do.

[Asher]

1) If the EMH is true then you are wrong.
2) I have refuted them, by pointing out that the market disagrees with you.



The fact that you don't see the connection is the problem.

Here's the problem: Does the market get things wrong sometimes? Yes or no?

I am saying the market is getting this wrong.

It doesn't have anything to do with the EMH.

[Asher]

You are talking about AAPL being overpriced, which implies that you believe your judgment is better than the millions of people who in aggregate have hundreds of billions of dollars riding on this.

You may know certain things about AAPL that only a few thousand people know. However, they almost certainly know more IN AGGREGATE than you do.

Yet they could still very well be wrong.

[Kuciwalker]

Here's the problem: Does the market get things wrong sometimes? Yes or no?

I am saying the market is getting this wrong.

It doesn't have anything to do with the EMH.

If the EMH is true then you can't correctly predict that the market is wrong. You can predict that the market is wrong, and through luck end up being correct, but your prediction is never justified - and relying on it is expect to, at best, earn you no above-market returns.

[Asher]

If the EMH is true then you can't correctly predict that the market is wrong. You can predict that the market is wrong, and through luck end up being correct, but your prediction is never justified - and relying on it is expect to, at best, earn you no above-market returns.

You put farrrrr too much faith in the collective wisdom of millions of idiots.