Considering the IP5"S" launch today, I've had quite a few emails to look at AAPL, I have looked at AAPL and just like when the IP5 was introduced, I came, I looked and I was not impressed (this time with the charts).
3C is not meant to tell us what every stock will do, it's meant to tell us when there is something extraordinary going on in a market that we just can't ignore while others see nothing but price action that often does not reflect what smart money is doing below the surface.
When the IP5 came out, after watching ther unveiling my first post was "This is the first IPhone that went from Revolutionary to Evolutionary", in other words I was deeply unimpressed as was the market, in point of fact the Galaxy S4 which I now own as the first non-AAPL phone for the first time since the first Iphone came out, was already smoking the IP-5 and the IP5 came out after so even their new release was already behind Samsung. For me, there was no way I was going to commit to a trade-in (AT&T) and a new 2 year contract for a phone that wasn't even on par with the competition and although the S4 is not as clean or intuitive, it does a lot more, it has some great features and I couldn't be happier with my decision (I especially like that I can increase the memory with a MicroSD card and change the battery).
My understanding is the IP5"S" is a phone for all, meaning a lower price point so AAPL's prestigious reputation can now be shared by everyone which in itself I think is a long term detriment to AAPL. If you look at MSFT from the early 1990's to 2000, MSFT was the exact same monstrous growth story, then MSFT did something that changed the company for good, they declared a dividend and since MSFT has no longer been considered a growth stock. Carl Icahn wasn't the first to call for a dividend in AAPL, but he'll be there to make sure it's larger than it may have otherwise have been.
Part of the AAPL appeal was that prestige that is now gone as there are about as many AAPL household products as there are house keys.
All of that said, I don't see a strong edge in AAPL either way, we don't take positions based on probabilities, we take positions based on HIGH PROBABILITIES, EXCELLENT ENTRIES AND LOW RISK. I can give you the probability of which way an issue will trade, I'm guessing AAPL sees a knee jerk from retail and it doesn't do much more because the fact is, unless there's something revolutionary in their "Phone for all price-points", the market has already discounted the extra demand the new Iphone will create as well as the lowered demand of the higher end AAPL customers who enjoy that prestige, there's nothing prestigious about your Iphone when an 8 year old has a similar version they saved up for from weekend car washes. I truly think MSFT pre- and post-2000 is the model for AAPL moving forward.
As for the charts, this is why I see no high probability position.
2 min, negative, but I wouldn't base a position on this alone ever.
3 min negative in to a run this afternoon above yesterday's close, note the tall candlestick wicks in the area in the red box, that is indicative of resistance and price that couldn't hold, almost like churning.
If you see something on the 15 min chart that stands out, let me know, I don't.
Longer term the 30-60 min (60 min above) do have some positives, my guess is this is Icahn related.
Specifically I believe that setting AAPL up with a substantial dividend and the fact that it's probably not going to see any severe losses in the year ahead makes it an attractive asset for long only fund like the many Mutual funds out there that would have little choice but to take losses on long only picks in a market decline, AAPL would offer some stability and a dividend to help out, IN FACT THAT IS WHT I BELIEVE PART OF ICAHN'S AAPL PLAY IS ALL ABOUT.
For the time being though, I don't see any position here that I would risk capital on.
Is interest rates about to start going up?
-
Yes, I know - it does not make any sense - FED is about to cut
rates...but....real world interest rates are not always what FED wants it
to be.
5 years ago
No comments:
Post a Comment