AAPL: How high will it go?

[mreid]

Originally Posted by enzo1

google buys Motorola for 12.5 b in 2011, sells it for 2.5b today and the stock goes up after hours...btw, read somewhere apple made more money in this quarter than amazon, netflix and google did all year...

This is why most people don't do well in the market. They don't understand how to research and understand acquisition strategies.

Originally Posted by RWebb

the 2.5 Billion sale price is for the dead husk of MOT from which Google has sucked out all the useful IP

This is why Webb does well in the market. He researches and understands stock valuations.

In the mid-80's, GE bought RCA. It was one of the largest acquisitions ever (at the time). Lots of speculation on GE "stupidity" as there was "no way" it was worth what they paid. Many speculated that they only wanted NBC back (interestingly, this is the only real asset they still own). Shrew packaging of RCA and GE businesses, some government donation for huge tax breaks, and some fortunate timing and the wise investor realized GE made a fortune and in effect got NBC for free.

[enzo1]

Originally Posted by mreid

This is why most people don't do well in the market. They don't understand how to research and understand acquisition strategies.



.

lmao... FYI:
• iPhone was released 5 years, 7 months, and 19 days after iPod.
• iPad was released 2 years, 9 months, and 5 days after iPhone.
• Tim Cook has been Apple CEO for 2 years, 5 months, and 11 days.

[911pcars]

Those who are more risk-adverse can invest in a mutual fund that carries a proportion of APPL or fast-food, whatever your investment interests are. Rely on the research the fund managers provide.

Sherwood

[McLovin]

Originally Posted by 911pcars

Those who are more risk-adverse can invest in a mutual fund that carries a proportion of APPL or fast-food, whatever your investment interests are. Rely on the research the fund managers provide.

Sherwood

And then more often than not you'll fail to beat the indexes.

It's legalized gambling. Even very smart, super experienced fund managers who have teams of researchers usually don't beat whatever the broad indexes (i.e., the level of the markets in general) are doing.

[911pcars]

For minimal risk, put your money in a money market fund, a savings account or a checking account. I think most pay almost 1%. There's also your bed mattress.

Sherwood

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by McLovin

And then more often than not you'll fail to beat the indexes.

It's legalized gambling. Even very smart, super experienced fund managers who have teams of researchers usually don't beat whatever the broad indexes (i.e., the level of the markets in general) are doing.

More often than not, yes if you pick a fund manager at random. But you should no more pick a fund or fund manager at random than you should pick stocks at random.

Sherwood gave good advice for an actively managed fund. The other factor is expenses - you always pay expenses, even when the value of the fund falls. The way to solve the problem is to buy a fund [1] run by a good manager, that [2] charges low expenses.

for [2] you buy a Vanguard or Fidelity fund

for [1] you either subscribe to a newsletter telling you what funds to buy in each of the two families; or (to use Super-Bong Bowl parlance) "roll your own" by looking at the newsletter ratings compiled by Mark Hurlbert.

Indiv. stocks should be left to a smaller, less secure portion of your portfolio - I look at mine as "play money" (tho a friend wants me to use options like he does).

For more discussion search OT for "Vanguard" - there are several threads, some with discussion between me and Paul Donkin, aka "Mustang Paulie" who favors index funds. We agree on Vanguard. Index funds are easier and are not far behind the best actively managed fund portfolios over long time periods.

[lukeh]

Originally Posted by McLovin

And then more often than not you'll fail to beat the indexes.

It's legalized gambling. Even very smart, super experienced fund managers who have teams of researchers usually don't beat whatever the broad indexes (i.e., the level of the markets in general) are doing.

How is buying a mutual fund legalized gambling? I think I'm missing the analogy.

I've never understood the concept of buy the index fund because they beat most managed funds. That's like saying race a Mustang because it's faster than most cars. I'd say buy the GT2 because it is faster than the Mustang. It's not that hard to find a fund manger with a track record of consistently outperforming the indexes.

[Rich76_911s]

Originally Posted by mreid

This is why most people don't do well in the market. They don't understand how to research and understand acquisition strategies.



This is why Webb does well in the market. He researches and understands stock valuations.

In the mid-80's, GE bought RCA. It was one of the largest acquisitions ever (at the time). Lots of speculation on GE "stupidity" as there was "no way" it was worth what they paid. Many speculated that they only wanted NBC back (interestingly, this is the only real asset they still own). Shrew packaging of RCA and GE businesses, some government donation for huge tax breaks, and some fortunate timing and the wise investor realized GE made a fortune and in effect got NBC for free.

Umm not sure how to tell you this but Comcast owns nbc.

[McLovin]

Originally Posted by lukeh

It's not that hard to find a fund manger with a track record of consistently outperforming the indexes.

They don't say "past performance does not guarantee future results" for nuthin.

[McLovin]

But I've been around long enough to know that everyone on PPOT is a stock market genius.

I remember quite well when many people here said you'd have to be an "idiot" to not be able to pick stocks and consistently get returns, over the long haul, of at least 25% per year.

[RWebb]

you don't have to be a genius - you just research who the best people are and hire them

or buy an index fund from Vanguard - simple, easy

[turbo6bar]

Wall Street Is A Rentier Rip-Off: Index Funds Beat 99.6% Of Managers Over Ten Years | Zero Hedge

he entire financial management industry is a profit-skimming rentier arrangement. It may seem uncharitable to note that only .4%--that's 4/10th of 1%--of mutual fund managers outperform a plain-vanilla S&P 500 index fund over 10 years, but that is being generous: by other measures, it's an infinitesimal 1/10th of 1%.

Almost no one can beat the market - Howard Gold's No-Nonsense Investing - MarketWatch

The study documents that in painful detail . Barras, Scaillet and Wermers tracked 2,076 actively managed U.S. domestic equity mutual funds between 1976 and 2006. They found that after fees, three-quarters of the funds exhibited zero “alpha,” a fund’s excess return over a benchmark index. And 24% of the funds were run by unskilled managers (who had negative alpha, or value subtraction).

And — are you sitting down? Only 0.6% — you read that right, 0.6% — showed any true skill at beating the market consistently, “statistically indistinguishable from zero,” the three researchers concluded.

Certainly, one can find a mutual fund that will beat the market over a select period of time, but it's much harder to find one that outperforms over the long-term. Certainly, one could jump to the newest, hot manager who will beat the market in the future, but if one possess the clairvoyance, why not select individual stocks, instead?

Honestly, who has actually bought an actively managed fund that has beaten the index over the last 10 or 20 years? I'd like to know how you selected that fund, and how will you find the next super-manager.

[recycled sixtie]

You can call me old fashioned but the more there is a person or reputable company associated with an investment the better. If there was a complete melt down of the the US financial system then I think the following the would be the safest to least safe. Feel free to challenge me!

Physical gold as in coins and bars.
Currency - what country?
Share certificates as in the actual paper certs.
Mutual funds with good companies such as Fidelity, Vanguard etc
Index funds not so much because if there was a meltdown then the underlying investments are not readily identified.

As the above mentioned I would own Apple only in a mutual fund. Too risky otherwise. If you look at the various mutual funds and see what they have invested in I think that would give an idea of solid safe stocks. I am getting away from picking individual stocks. I leave it to the professionals.....G

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by lukeh

....It's not that hard to find a fund manger with a track record of consistently outperforming the indexes.

How about sharing what a couple of these funds are if you don't mind? Show me something "good" (better than what I've been doing the past 15 years or so) and I'll jump at it . First half of my corporate career was with two of the largest banks (one now managed out of existence) with stellar "wealth management" divisions. Their fund performances were "OK at best", but certainly nothing a prudent, analytical investor can't surpass with a bit of diligence.

Originally Posted by McLovin

But I've been around long enough to know that everyone on PPOT is a stock market genius.

I remember quite well when many people here said you'd have to be an "idiot" to not be able to pick stocks and consistently get returns, over the long haul, of at least 25% per year.

Not EVERYONE...remember back when you were an "article"...many were real estate tycoons on that classic thread

Hey, welcome back Jurgen!!! Long time no see....hope life is grand for ya!

[McLovin]

Originally Posted by KC911

Not EVERYONE...remember back when you were an "article"...many were real estate tycoons on that classic thread

Hey, welcome back Jurgen!!! Long time no see....hope life is grand for ya!

Wow, it's Throwback Monday! Real estate tycooons/"Real Estate Prices Never Go Down" and turbo6bar on the same page.

Nice!

(P.S. yeah, welcome back Jurgen)

[911pcars]

Anyone had a chance to invest in companies like Google and Facebook a couple of years ago......if you want to pick two to track. As they say, buy low and sell high.

As for APPL. It was kind of the favorite for portfolio managers. Think of the results when a stock consistently rebounds 10 pts after a similar dip a few days earlier. Multiple that by 100 shares repeated for several investors.

I suggest to my kids to select some stocks for kicks as if they had money invested and see how that goes. It gets them (I hope) interested in how the market works and how seemingly random events affect the market. I know. It baffles me too.

However, as it's been stated repeatedly on this thread, there's a risk in any investment whether buying stock or loaning money to a relative for a business scheme. One can play it safe and deposit funds in a federally insured bank or hide it in a tin can. For many Americans, having money to save is sometimes a struggle. But if possible, try to save some instead of living large now, a concept lost on many able-bodied citizens.

Many investors do okay, better or meh in the stock market. Not sure why some here would discourage others who have the funds, knowledge, interest and patience to try it, maybe the same ones who think nothing of gambling trips to Vegas or Atlantic City, play poker, bet on horse races or SuperBowl games or hope their restored ______ (insert favorite vehicle) creates a large ROI at auction, eBay, etc.

Sherwood

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by McLovin

But I've been around long enough to know that everyone on PPOT is a stock market genius.

I remember quite well when many people here said you'd have to be an "idiot" to not be able to pick stocks and consistently get returns, over the long haul, of at least 25% per year.

I can't do it over the long haul, but I did better than 25% in 2013. My favorite fund did 33.80% Westwood SMidCap Fund Institutional Class WHGMX

You'd have to be an idiot not to be able to get 25% in 2013
J/K, but 20% should have been pretty darned easy.



2013 performance
DJ Industrial Average up 16.07
NASDAQ Composite up 30.61
NYSE Composite up 12.20
Russell 2000 up 27.03
S&P 500 up 21.52
S&P MidCap 400 up 21.87


PS I got a feeling that 2014 is gonna be a whole different story, 5% will prolly look pretty good this time next year.

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by turbo6bar

Honestly, who has actually bought an actively managed fund that has beaten the index over the last 10 or 20 years? I'd like to know how you selected that fund, and how will you find the next super-manager.

I have - your other questions were previously explained

[lendaddy]

Originally Posted by RWebb

I have - your other questions were previously explained

I'm not gonna lie, I think I'm chubbing up a little...

[turbo6bar]

I remember Mark Hulbert and his columns on Marketwatch. Here's an interesting article he wrote this past fall: Hulbert on Investing: Can You Beat the Market? - WSJ.com

It has always been difficult for investors to consistently beat index funds. It has been nearly impossible lately.

And there's a double whammy: The small number of advisers who outperform the market rarely can keep doing so.

As McLovin says, looking at newsletters that point out last year's winners is a sucker's game.

Some traders hold out the hope that they can beat the market by following the lead of an investment adviser. But it is close to impossible to identify these advisers in advance, according to Mr. Tint.

"The average reader of The Wall Street Journal simply won't be able to identify these market-beating advisers," he says. After all, "repeated studies have shown that even the best institutional investors have been unable to identify them in advance."

I ask, once again, who has beat the index over the long-term? How did you select those stocks or managers? Who here actually invested with the hot stock or manager and what pointed you in that direction?

Knowing the hot managers is great, but they won't stay hot forever. How do we find the next winner?

Cheers,
Jurgen