what a bollocks, did you waste your brain and time on all the previous posts like this? You conveniently omitted that several months passed between the GS call and the top in crude. Can you say with statistical certainty that it pays to short names whose targets were raised by GS or JPM? Which of the many raised targets in names that have gone up for months/years do you actually mean? Why is ES so full of idiots. Seriously...
My GS target-raise top signal was an attempt to be humorous. I remember GS targeting crude $200 as it traded above $145, which was about the top. I don't mind being called an idiot, as long as I continue to be a successful idiot.
well you did not sound all that funny before but if your post was meant to be ironic then I take back what I said. About GS's crude call, they saw 200 crude even before we hit 100.
It won't be a short squeeze and here's why: The only people shorting AAPL other than to catch intraday pullbacks or very short term pullbacks in the trend are retail day traders. They will be squeezed out of their positions, but their trading volume doesn't make much of a dent in the overall price action. The short interest on AAPL is 1.1%, nothing there to initiate a short squeeze. The institutional traders that invest longer term and move the markets are buying AAPL because AAPL is an awesome investment and is currently undervalued based on its fundamentals. They're not shorting AAPL and that's why the short interest is nearly non-existent on this stock. AAPL earnings when it traded just above $200 in 2007 were just shy of $4/share. Now 2010 earnings are projected to be $13/share, and 2011 to be $15/share. They managed this growth during the worst recession we've experienced since the Great Depression. This stock should be trading at $300+ and that's why it likely will barring another mass panic liquidation event.
Exactly. It was at over 50 times earnings at the peak. What will earnings be in 2012 or 2013, 3-4 years after the bull market started? Maybe $17, $18, $20? If it reaches 50 times earnings again, that would give price targets of 850-1000 per share. Being more conservative at 40 times earnings, and you get $700-800 per share. That's a pretty good upside. Now, what about the risk? If earnings hold up, there basically is very little risk, because the P/E is not high. When you buy a growth stock at a 40 or 50 PE you have risk, because it is priced for near-perfection. When you buy at 20 times earnings it is priced for reasonable but not exceptional growth, so the only surprises that are likely to occur are of the pleasant variety. Even if AAPL just grows at the same rate as the rest of the S&P 500 (very unlikely), it is only looking at about 25% downside from today's prices. So in the unlikely worst case, you lose 25%. In the best case, you make 250%+. Your reward is 5-10 times your risk, and it's more than 50% likely to turn out well than badly. That's a pretty good bet. It is puzzling to me that people not only refuse to buy such a cheap stock with great prospects and superb risk/reward, but *actually think it's a short*. I honestly don't understand it. Maybe one of the shorts could give their reasoning?
Selective memory - for example, Goldman had a $100 target on oil for a long time (which was spot on - this was back at $50). When it hit $100 they raised it higher. Oil then went up another 47% in a few months - that would have been a painful short. While it is true that many tops coincide with analyst bullishness, that doesn't mean that all or even most analyst bullishness coincides with tops.
Come on! this thread was so popular! It's got 1 Star. This STOCK is so popular. Any fundamental reason why AAPL is forming a Bearish Double Top today?