By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
I have no doubt it reaches over $700 to 750 this year. I think the price to $645 happens by the next earnings announcement which is maybe 2 months away.
As a nation, we have to work on finding energy alternatives so we don't have to rely on foreign sources - PERIOD. We import natural gas from Trinidad to run powerplants in the northeast, we import oil from various sources, we import electricity from Canada, et al.
I know the alternatives aren't quite there yet. But it's a chicken and egg thing. If we were to stop importing foreign energy, the cost of energy would spike. That in turn would drive the research into alternatives and bring their costs more in line with fossil fuels. But we have been Wal-Marted and won't accept the pain of higher prices to free ourselves from the dependence on foreign energy.
I understood your post. I was saying that the price may actually reach as high as $700 - $750 by the same time you are suggesting $645.
Len...
I MUST ask you about NATURAL GAS. I am really starting to think that a current 10-year low is enough to start considering it's time to invest in natural gas. Let's give this serious consideration , and let me know your thoughts. Thanks.
TM
We can start by drilling in areas of the US and in the Gulf which are now being stalled or blocked. We can change EPA rules to allow more use of Midwest coal. We can change EPA rules to build new, efficient refineries to replace the ones being shut down on the East Coast.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Unfortunately, I will not be able to enjoy the incredibly warm weather in the Midwest this week. My wife and I are visiting our son and his family in Seattle until next Tuesday morning. A you can see, the weather here is going to be worse than horrible. It will be either a cold rain, and, or wet snow basically every day we are here. In fact, it has been snowing off and on the past hour with a temperature of 36 degrees. It will not get much warmer than 40-42 today.
But whining about the horrible weather here does not take anything away from our sheer enjoyment of the kids and grandkids (twin girls).
Btw, I think it will be the warmest March on record for much of the nation east of the Rockies. Amazing, amazing, amazing!
Then I misunderstood your post as I didn't realize you were stating that big of a rise that quickly. You are a lot more bullish than me and I consider myself a strong bull on Apple and stocks in general this year. With a rise to $645 and most certainly to $700-750 if you are right the dips are going to be few and far between and very brief.
Per today's NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/us/politics/obama-approval-rating-down-in-new-- - york-times-cbs-poll.html?ref=todayspaper
Tag,
Len can correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think that the $640 level is his longer term estimate. He is talking about $640 in the next month or two.
TM
Len and I have already exchanged posts, and we now understand each other more clearly.
Len's $645 prediction is reaching out a couple of months, as he posted, and I am also with my $700 - $750, (although I might be getting a little ahead of myself).
TM
Consider that Intel may not be able to supply the "next generation" of chips soon/fast enough for Apple to adequately upgrade the rest of its product line, such as MacBook Pro and iMac, and maybe even the MacBook Air.
TM
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/breakout/5-gas-prices-think-again-says-flynn-1842- 00197.html
Tag,
I'm not knowledgible enough about it to give you a good answer. The only thing 'll say is that when oil hit $147 back in 2008, natural gas reached near $14. At that time they almost seemed co-joined. Since then however oil and natural gas have not had similar charts, often going in opposite directions. Every rally natural gas tried to make fizzled and it headed even lower. A big reason is that investors and speculators don't view it as anything that can be currency like and that puts a lid on how high it can go IMO.
You probably know my feeling. Both are out of order vs market fundamentals with oil overvalued and natural gas slightly undervalued. But these markets are emotional markets with excess speculation in them (natural gas much more in the past which again is the reason I have my doubts about it).
Some key charts:
http://www.oilnergy.com/1gnymex.htm
The link below may also be helpful and this excerpt from it would scare me:
Predicting the future is dangerous. The price of natural gas in the future will depend upon factors of supply and demand. Supplies of natural gas are growing. New drilling technology makes it possible to extract quantities of natural gas from tight shale formations that were unproductive in the past. These rock units are present in many parts of the world and are geographically extensive. They have significantly added to the natural gas resource.
http://geology.com/articles/natural-gas-prices/
Here are my thoughts on nat. gas: First of all, supplies have been huge as exploration in North America has found a lot more of this stuff. Secondly, following the 4th warmest winter in history for the nation as a whole, has placed much more downside pressure on this market. Thirdly, this month will likely be the warmest March in history from the Rockies to the East Coast and this is another VERY bearish factor. Heck, in some ways, it will be SO warm in the Midwest and East that there will be some air conditioning usage (but not enough to count) which is actually a bullish factor. Even if we have a hot summer in the Midwest and East (very strong correlation that it will be a hot summer) this is nowhere near as important as a cold winter in these areas.
Thank you Len.
Sounds like too much risk... I'll stick with AAPL.
TM
I love and obviously agree with this guy's thinking. Everything hinges on Iran.
All great points. The fact that natural gas supplies are growing so much makes you wonder why technology isn't going there fast enough.
Re the downward pressure on prices due to weather I'd expect the usage to be way down this March vs year ago given the weather maps on models showing the warmth from the plains to the east coast lasting for so long. There's actually no end in sight. Today here in central NJ is about the same temperature as yesterday (low 70's) but because humidity is up it actually feels 10+ degrees warmer as the air has a summer 80's feel to it. Cherry blossoms and magnolias have already bloomed and pears are very close. My perenials started coming up almost a month ago believe it or not.
Here in Malibu... we pay a monstrous premium to live here with our year-round comfortable Mediterranean climate. :shades:
It's no fair if the rest of you get it without paying through the nose.
TM
It seems like Apple is now a run-away train. $600 here I come!
Here's Apple's 5 year chart. The rise we are seeing now is similar to the beginning of when the stock tripled from 100 to 300. I don't see the stock tripling but even at todays run up the stock is seriously undervalued especially when you know the new iPad will jump numbers and the iPhone 5 is months away and sales of both are butressing laptop and iMac sales.
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=AAPL+Interactive#chart1:symbol=aapl;range=5y;- charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined
Dips, when they occur (and they absolutely do happen now and then), are soooo important, because they represent a no-brainer opportunity to buy more shares. I will continue to stress this.
EDIT: I bought 25 more shares during the climb at the close, and now own a modest total of 400 shares... and if/when it dips, I will buy more.
EDIT: At this rate, my prediction of $700 - $750 in about two months may be more realistic than your $645 prediction. Well... let's hope so!
TM
But that doesn't change our dependence on fossil fuels. IMHO, real work and results on alternative fuels won't come to fruition until the cheap fuels we have now become more expensive.
This sounds like obama's goals. I consider the alternative sources now specialty sources, rather than alternative sources. The truth of their efficacy is on the level of global warming claims.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=MSFT+Interactive#chart1:symbol=msft;range=1y;- - indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=un- - defined
I wouldn't disagree.
I consider the alternative sources now specialty sources, rather than alternative sources.
Which is the problem. As I said - it's chicken and egg. Without it being economically viable, alternative fuels will stay alternative and not the norm. We can either try and bring that price down or just keep doing things the same old way.
The shale oil reserves everyone is touting are only viable today because the price of oil is high enough to support the technology to retrieve it. If oil were cheaper, we wouldn't be trying to get at it.
Agree. I didn't finish my earlier post properly--I'm in the middle of doing some maintenance work on my car (this is a car forum! grin).
I don't see the alternative energy source that's going to work. I see them as paper tigers to throw money at politically-aimed like Solyndra.
Does anyone see having a windmill in their backyard?
Does anyone see having solar panels as their sole source or energy? I saw a Fix This Old House episode that someone put solar panels on their roof owned by the investment company and the person buys the reduced rate electricity from the actual owner for 10 years or 20 years--I forget.
We have coal out the wazoo.
As Tagman noted we have a good supply of natural gas (a by-product of drilling for oil). I see those both being good sources if we get the political plow out of the blockade on coal that's trying divert all monies into wind farms, solar panels, etc. Odd that we ship coal from the Midwest down the river to go to Asia for use. Not much saving CO2 from the atmosphere on the part of global warming fanatics, is happening there since the coal is being used elsewhere.
IOW, I wouldn't invest in any of those other than something that would allow coal to be cleaned and EPA strictures reduced to allow it burned here.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
While that may be true. What do you think will happen to the economy if gas goes up to meet the alternatives for gasoline? I forgot there are no alternatives currently available. I personally like the idea of algae biodiesel. Current cost to extract is in the $35 per gallon range. We have 250 million cars in the USA that require gas to keep going. Nothing on the horizon but fossil fuel to satisfy that need. Why block any viable source? The current price roughly reflects the cost to retrieve the most difficult oil in the tar sands. I thought the Congress was going to pass some legislation to make speculation a little harder back in 2009. I guess they did not figure out how to do it. I would hope some day, some bright young scientists will come up with the answer. I don't see throwing Federal dollars at campaign contributors as working so well. Research grants for universities is probably the best way to spend alternative energy resources. Not fly by night Wind and Solar companies. Or subsidizing ethanol production that is worse for the environment than using oil.
What happened was they put pressure on the CFTC (Commodities Future Trading Comission) and they increased the amount that had to be put down up front by 95%. Now that sounded good and made great press and was of course badly understood by the public. In fact it almost came across in one story I read that it was that the new requirement was that you had to put down 95% and could only margin 5%. What they really did was increase the amount that had to be put down by 95% but that was no big deal because all it did was took 5% down and 95% margined to 9.75% down and 90.25% margined. If the CFTC had phrased it right - saying they decreased margin requirements by 5% from 95% to 90.25% the public would have said - are you kidding me? It's as if the autobahn speed limit was decreased from no limit to 200mph.
Here's a business week article from 2008:
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2008/db2008068_580706.htm- -
Another good article here:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/144960-crude-oil-trading-regulation-a-terrible-i- dea-whose-time-has-come
100% right Gary - but they made it sound like they and the CFTC did a lot. And yes the 29 crash was caused by margin and the big difference to the crash of a few years ago is that the 2008 crash was real estate driven but based on identical margin requirements. In fact it was even worse as banks were even willing to lend with no money down and were giving interest only loans just to reap ST profits from the loan fees and then later from the fees on the derivatives the bad loans were packaged in. In effect it was Romper room and the kids running it got rich on bonus programs tied to the wreckless freedoms.
I wouldn't expect nor require that the cost of gasoline go up overnight but just as more expensive oil makes oil sands/shale viable, the same would be true for alternative fuels. Unfortanately, we don't innovate for innovation's sake - there has to be a financial benefit to do so.
Folks in Europe seem to get along just fine with $8 gasoline.
So, if true, the new simpler name "iPad" makes sense for the exact reasons I posted... which was that the new name is better-suited to an entire product line instead of a single product.
I hope it's true, and that they build it... and that it maintains a high level of specifications, instead of being a diluted, cheaper iPad whose only mission is to kill the Kindle Fire.
TM
EDIT: AMAZING price increase for AAPL shares again this morning.
TM
That's IMHO, of course.
Regards,
OW
P.S.: Go IBM!!
That's why I disagree so much with Tag on this stock. What's it going to dip to - $15 or $20 above the closing price two days ago. That's a bad buy compared to buying it two days ago. To me a dip is below the price I could have bought at - at a time I decided I want to buy. If it runs to $620 and then falls to $600 that's not a dip given you could have bought it at $540. It's also why I warned Charlie about trying to take advantage of a dip ahead of time with a lucky guess. It's penny wise and pound foolish. The stock can run 10-15% on you. Dip buying works on over-valued stocks and can be merciless on a stock that is undervalued. I'd do it with Baidu, but not Apple.
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Morgan Stanley raised its price target on Apple Inc. to $720 from $515 on Wednesday morning, citing its belief that investors "still underestimate the earnings potential" at the consumer electronics giant. Shares of Apple AAPL +2.43% were up 2.5% to $582.49 in early trades. In a note to clients, analyst Katy Huberty cited several earnings drivers at the company, including enterprise tablet adoption, a strong upgrade cycle for an LTE-based iPhone later this year, and strong growth in emerging markets. She added that her new target "assumes no mutiple expansion," even if the company starts paying a dividend, and that Apple has been added to the broker's "best ideas list."
Nothing you and TM already didn't know.
Regards,
OW
OW... Only an idiot would not BUY more Apple shares when they take a significant dip.
"Trading" is another matter, and the secret to making sure that is successful is to use seperate money that does not interfere with the shares that are being held LT... and to use that seperate money to buy on the dips and then flip them for quick gains... but trading has risks, and I constantly post that it should only be attempted by someone who truly understands how it works... such as myself... and I have repeatedly and clearly posted here that I do not recommend "trading" to anyone here.
All that said, when Apple shares dip... consider the event a gift, and the smartest thing to do is take advantage of it. Only a fool would pass up an opportunity like that.
Heck, I recall Charlie's recent attempt to wire money, in order to buy more shares when the stock experienced a dip. He was smart to do that... and you would be smart to do the same. I bought shares that day, for around $516 / share... IIRC.
I also recall when Steve Jobs was reported to be near death... the stock took a terrible hit, and those that bought it at that time made a fortune.
TM
WOW! That report comes out exactly one day after I posted yesterday my prediction for $700 - $750 share price within the next two months.
Thanks for the post.
TM
My post to Charlie back on January 31. The stock was at $455 at the time:
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f12075b/6536#MSG6536
I am glad you brought that to our attention.
You have definitely had your "finger on the pulse"!
But, it begs this... as you have just reminded us all, almost two months ago, you predicted a sudden surge to $700, yet just as recent as yesterday you predicted a rise to $645 in two more months from now. :confuse:
TM
http://news.investors.com/article/604295/201203141236/apple-tech-firms-lead-over- seas-profits.htm?ven=yahoocp,yahoo
Selling a stock the way Charlie did is nothing like buying on a dip. He SOLD shares when they were UP. He did not BUY shares when they were DOWN... That's a MONSTER DIFFERENCE! A 180-degree difference.
Selling Apple shares the way Charlie did was ridiculous, IMO, and I have no doubt whatsoever that he knows it was a mistake. Fortunately, as he posted thereafter, the whole mistake only cost him somewhere between $300 - $400 dollars.
I am not going to continue to post the better way to BUY shares vs. the better way to TRADE shares. I have posted it sooooo many times already, it is getting ridiulous. I am shocked that nobody here seems to understand the distinction between the two approaches.
Regarding your $700 prediction... it certainly did not seem to be aimed towards summer... In what post did you suggest summer as your target? In fact, it sounded quite imminent, and your follow-up post suggested that Apple would be announcing some sort of purchase of their own shares, which would fall in line with Apple's shareholder's meeting, which has already occured. So, I cannot find any place where you mentioned summer, and everything seemed to point to a timeline that was more imminent or more in line with the recent shareholder's meeting.
Regardless... the bottom line is that the stock is performing very well, and the company is making great strides very quickly. We certainly agree with one another regarding the surge in share price.. but I am a little more optimistic than you, based upon our predictions.
The only area of disagreement (or misunderstanding) is regarding the premise of buying on dips. I will repeat what I have posted NUMEROUS times... I am absolutely convinced that it makes sense to BUY AAPL shares on significant dips. I do NOT think it is a good idea for anyone else here to attempt to time this stock. I do NOT recommend day-trading to anyone else here. I do NOT recommend that anyone else here should ever SELL shares in anticipation of a dip... only to BUY on an ACTUAL dip. I recommmend that money used to TRADE, if one is inclined to do so, be kept SEPERATE from money that is used to HOLD the shares LT.
But, above all... it is SMART to BUY APPL shares on an actual real-life significant DIP! There is no valid mathematical argument to suggest otherwise.
TM
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Len,
I remember that post and amazing prediction by you like it was yesterday. In fact, I informed my stock broker and my brother about your bold prediction and I bought more AAPL shares with the broker I believe a few days later. Your predictions have also helped solidify my own belief that AAPL will indeed reach $700 and eventually $1000 within a year or so. You have also helped me avoid doing doing any more" cute" trades with AAPL by trying to time selling some shares and buying them back cheaper. Fortunately, all I have done lately is just buy more shares of AAPL, period.
What Charlie was doing if I remember right was selling on the anticipation the stock would dip and then intending to buy on the dip. To me that is buying on the dip. Charlie knows better than either of us what he was doing. Anyway this is the last I'll say on buying Apple right now (not other stocks) on the dip but just look at the 6 week chart on this stock. It has practically gone straight up. There have been almost no chances to get in on a dip. So if you bought on any dip and had the luck to time that perfectly you still bought higher than where the stock came from just before. Again if the stock dips $15 tomorrow is that really a dip, given it was lower than that 24 hours ago. In my book no. You would have been better off buying 24 hours ago. I guess it depends on how you define a dip. My point to Charlie, and I made it clear to him in an e-mail was don't play games trying to time dips when the stock is trading up or you'll get burned. And he did get burned but luckily only with a 25 share sell.
Tag, I don't understand why it bothers you so much that I made that prediction and why you're making a copetition out of this. I said a sudden rise with little or no warning. Isn't that what we got? In another post later I explained why I thought the the market cap had to move to $600bln and soon. What more do you want - for me to put a time of day stamp on it. Again, I'm not competing with anyone here, just offering my thoughts. I didn't know there were rules we had to go by.
Let me prove my argument mathematically. I currently own only 400 shares, worth about $237,000... at this moment, based upon the value as I write this. If the stock dips tomorrow by at least 2% (which is typically my minimum required pullback to buy), it would make financial and mathematical sense to buy some more. Let's say that I would buy and additional 50 shares more. Upon doing so, I would then own those shares at a 2% discount to where the stock was just prior to the dip. Once the stock increases again, and we can use an increase of only 4% from the dip for this example (or only 2% from where it was prior to the dip), The total gain on the 450 shares would then be $10,451. But by buying the dip, the extra gain is $1,161 at ZERO RISK. I could either hold those additional shares, and allow additional growth as an investment, or flip them immediately for an almost instant bonus gain of $1,161, which is over and above the gains of $9,290 which would be attributed to the original 400 shares.
With Apple stock, it is not unusual for this kind of rebound to happen within 24 - 48 hours. In my example, a quick purchase of 50 shares would make over a thousand dollars bonus within only a day or two, typically. If I were to hold those shares, then the additional gains are much more profound as the stock makes its way upwards. For example, when the stock then goes up an additional 15%, that small purchase of those extra shares would have brought in an ADDITONAL $4,350 in gains. At any time, I could flip them, and still be EXACTLY where I would have otherwise been with my original 400 sahres, which were NEVER at any increased risk.
Lastly, selling shares IN ANTICIPATION of a dip is TOTALLY OPPOSITE of buying during an ACTUAL dip, and then maintaining a position of flipping them, or holding them. You seemed to indicate that there is no difference, and they are actually as different as night and day, as my example (and experience) and Charlie's experience have PROVED and illustrated in real life.
It is critical to also understand that the shares that are already being held LT are not being impacted or affected in ANY way.
Anyway, I am done with this argument. It is exhausting. I will simply continue to enjoy the gains, and if the share price takes a big dip, I will consider buying more at that time.
TM