In the last 26 weeks Apple has only been down 4 weeks. And those have been marginal. There has been no down week in the last eight. Wall Street should start a club for all the folks that think stocks like this are a short. By the way, why don't you email Carl Swenlin, the writer of the article, and ask him if he's short Apple? It's easier to predict that answer than to call the top in Apple. OldTrader
Aren't you being a little hard on him? He said the stock was going parabolic and as a result he wouldn't play it long or short. He also said stocks that go parabolic inevitably take a nasty fall. Do you really disagree?
tell you what ... those who faded the gaps on the way up might not be around to go short when AAPL finally dips !
Perhaps I was a little hard on him. Evidently you think so and I will defer to that. But do stocks like AAPL "inevitably" take a "nasty fall"? You have to hate comments like this don't you? What does "inevitable" mean? I've heard comments like that about every big stock market winner since I've been in the business. Usually when you start hearing that the stock has considerably farther to go. I've been hearing that on EBAY for instance for years...and we did get a "nasty fall" here recently. But after how many years? I think what articles like this do is encourage shortsellers, and discourage potential buyers...although that doesn't appear to be Swenlin's motive. After reading Swenlins article you'd have to admit that buying Apple would be the last thing you would do...so that you would not get caught up in a "nasty fall". For that matter, what does "nasty fall" mean? For instance, would a drop to 65-70 be a "nasty fall"? I'd love to give you a list of stocks that are subject to that "inevitable nasty fall". I'm no fan of Swenlins either, in case you can't tell. I'm still waiting for 400 on the Dow that he was predicting based on the monthly Dow charts a few years ago. I think his analysis is quite unimpressive. Regardless, I don't think anything about stocks is "inevitable". If that were true then Swenlin would have all the money. It could be that Apple's earnings are going to accelerate. Or, it could be that the stock undergoes some consolidation up here, no real drop, then eventually moves even higher. Stocks that are parabolic are generally parabolic for a reason....they aren't always "overvalued", whatever that means. In any case, I'll get off my soapbox now....it's all just my opinion. OldTrader
Funny thing about apple is, I can remember 20+ years ago people thinking it'd go out of business. And it's been like that since then. Hot for a couple of years, icecold next and so on.
That article sucked, there was nothing remotely interesting about it that i could tell. The author compared its move this year to a macro move in 99-2000 when every nasdaq stock essentially has the same "parabolic" chart. then he seems to suggest that apple is probably heavily shorted because of the chart when hardly anyone has or would short it, the small short interest it has is mostly due to options related trading. The author doesn't even have the balls to make a real call if that is what he is trying to do: "i don't know when.....the end is "probably" near......prices can return...or "close to it" blah blah blah..... there isn't a single point he makes that is insightful. Ahh...apple went up a few years ago and its gone up fast again, and they split their stock both times (imagine that??) and he thinks they are a good company but its gone too far to fast? Maybe they should ration the Ipod's they sell so it goes up more in a more linear grinding higher manner? Thanks....so basically it could go higher, or it could go down but for now its best to stand on the sidelines? Is that his point?
they don't even have the best product on the market anymore. the just released iriver is smaller, has better recording options, and has FM radio. no one is going to buy the shuffle. it lacks a screen for christ's sake, it doesn't have FM radio, and it's capacity is small. the one edge the ipod has right now is all the accesories built for it from 3rd parties. not saying this is the spot to short, but there will be one. "iRiver H10: why bother with iPod?" http://reviews.cnet.com/4852-6490_7-31256866.html?tag=uo
you're comparing a $250+ iRiver to the Shuffle? ...and using that comparison as a basis to say that nobody will buy the shuffle? hate to break it to you, but somewhere in the neighborhood of a million shuffles have already been sold and they haven't even been out for a month.