Apple chart : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

-- whome? (i@dont.know), September 29, 2000


Time to buy.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), September 29, 2000.


Not yet.

The stock is almost guaranteed to see $21. It will probably see $17, and it could be even worse.

Not intended as investment advice, yada yada.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), September 29, 2000.

LOL, how is it "almost guaranteed?" They announce that their profits this quarter won't be as big as they thought and the stock plunges fifty percent??? Seems a bit extreme to me, even for panicky day traders.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), September 30, 2000.

It is still the best goddamed operating system ever written.

-- semper paratus (, September 30, 2000.


Perhaps it was wildly overpriced before, and this is a reaction to that former error.

semper paratus:

There are other OSes besides those from Microshaft and Apple. For example, for my money Linux is much better (more reliable, better designed) than any MS OS or Mac OS.

-- ABC (a@b.c), September 30, 2000.

Wow, I actually agree with ABC on something. I'm glad to see you not obsessing about cpr for once. Hopefully you are on the road to recovery and eventually we might have an intelligent conversation.

-- DEF (d@e.f), September 30, 2000.


For example, for my money Linux is much better (more reliable, better designed) than any MS OS or Mac OS

Good point. It would be much better if, at least, some of my important applications would work with that OS. Unfortunately, they only work with MacOS.

Best wishes,,,,


-- Z1X4Y7 (, September 30, 2000.

Isn't apple version 10 going to use Linux. And isnt Linux full of demonic names to describe itself?

-INever (sticking with 8.5.1)

-- INever (, October 01, 2000.


Sorry for not responding earlier. I have been away from the computer for a few days.

Charts tell a lot about a stock's movements. It is my opinion that AAPL will fall to $21. It may hold there, but it is more likely that it will fall to the $17 level where there were many buyers back in '98-'99.

ABC is right. Falling 50% does not necessarily mean that something is cheap. It depends on how overpriced it was before.

semper paratus may be right, but a great product does not necessarily a great stock make.

Not intended as investment advice, yada yada.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), October 02, 2000.

Wouldn't future actions by a company be a better indicator than simply looking at the stock chart? I would think that the $17 reflected the situation of the company at that time, which may not necessarily be the situation now. On the near horizon, Apple has new form factor iBooks, OS X, most likely a G4 PowerBook, 17" iMac, and probably G5 and G6 machines. Nothing is guaranteed, especially the success of these products, but they certainly hold enough promise to expect that the stock could go higher than $25 where it is now.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), October 02, 2000.


Not necessarily. Future actions are unknown, and one must consider the human element on stock price movements. Apple currently has lost credibility in the investment community. If they tell us this week that they think that they will sell X amount of G4 PowerBooks down the road, the tendency of investors right now is to say, "Yeah right, I have heard that before". With that in mind, the feel around the stock has become bearish rather than bullish.

We assume that the stock will not go to zero, so the question becomes, how far will it fall? The answer is: until the big boys start buying it. History (the chart) has told us that the big boys once had an appetite for this stock at $17. You (I assume) and I (I know) will not create the price floor on this stock with our buying. Very large investors will. To buy this stock at a price higher than they buy will only cost you money as it falls to their price level.

Ultimately, the stock may indeed get back higher than $25; I am not arguing that it won't. I do believe that before it makes that run up, it will fall to $21 (a prior resistance level), and most likely to $17 (a prior support level).

Just so that the critics don't lambast me next week if the stock bounces to $27, I expect that the stock from here will bounce higher (dead cat bounce) and then trend lower at least to the $21 level, and probably to the $17 level. I would not be a buyer right now (24 5/16) unless I were a very aggressive trader. And then, I would trade out of the stock on the bounce that is most likely going to happen to the $27-$28 level.

Not intended as investment advice, yada yada.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), October 02, 2000.

Well, no, the future actions aren't "unknown" to the extent that I just mentioned what some of them will most likely be. What we don't know is what effect that will have on the stock price. I suppose if the "Big Boys" only look at the stock charts and ignore what Apple is going to do, then $17 is as good a number as any. But why $17? What was the reason for it back then? Certainly the price wasn't randomly chosen. The Big Boys must have had a reason to be comfortable at that level. Is that reason the same as the reasons they have now? That's the question.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), October 02, 2000.


What products Apple are bringing out is not important, per se. What IS important is how many will they sell, at what price, and at what cost to produce? These things are unknown, and in most cases, always are. It is the analysis of these (and other) unknown variables that leads to stock price prediction. When information becomes known that greatly changes the dynamics of this equation, stocks tend to move sharply to readjust to the new information.

The big boys are not ignoring what Apple will do, but there is more to pricing a stock then just the fundamentals of the company. $17 wasn't just randomly chosen, it became the equilibrium price where the big money could get enough, but not too much, of Apple stock. It was also the price that sellers/short sellers wouldn't/couldn't break through.

The question is not if the reasons now are the same as the reasons then. Some are, some aren't. The question is at what price will equilibrium be found. History tells us that because $17 was that level before, then $17 has a greater chance than $18 or $16 of being that level again.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), October 02, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ