AAPL Intraday Updates (Archive)

  • Avatar

    Posted: 09 April 2009 10:07 AM #31

    willrob - 09 April 2009 12:48 PM

    All the financials are up

    WFC 32%
    C 12.5 %
    BAC 16-17%
    JPM 12.2 %

    Of course they will all sell off at the open, since profit taking is what this market is all about.

    Maybe not.  This blurb re: the stress tests may give the financials some additional legs.

    The banking industry is holding up better than many people think but still may require more government aid, The New York Times reported Thursday, citing officials involved in examinations of some of the nation’s biggest banks. Regulators say all 19 banks undergoing the exams will pass them, the report said. But several people involved in the process say there is a wide range of results among the institutions, the newspaper said.

    Signature

    “Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens.”
    - Jimi Hendrix

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 09 April 2009 10:48 AM #32

    Mayor Quimby - 09 April 2009 11:52 AM
    Eric Landstrom - 08 April 2009 06:11 PM

    1/3rd of trading volume is done by people like myself. I do not have a way to jam down stocks. one several days 65% of banks stocks were sold sort, this would have been impossible with the uptick rule in place. This doesn’t mean that C shouldn’t have been valued at $0.97 a share but it does mean that it would have taken longer to get there and that the thousands of investors who were crushed and forced to sell under one dollar would have had an opportunity to get out earlier and without panic. The lack of an uptick rule sounded good in a bull market and even in an even market but in a bear market, its absence became a vehicle of bears to push down markets. I know this because I was one of the guys who saw what was happening and began shorting with impunity because bulls where getting steamrolled and America watched 1/2 of its wealth vanish.

    Near as I can tell, most traders are for an uptick rule and the people arguing against the uptick rule claiming that the sophisticated shorting programs that firms like Goldman Sachs use will not be affected, are money managers who tend to specialize in bearish positions. In other words the cons in the uptick rule discussion are talking their books and we’d carry the discussion further along if everybody realized that everybody is talking their books.

    Eric- I think this is just so silly (and you know I’m not talking my book - never have!).  There’s no effective way to short a stock into the ground if the company is sound because buyers step in as soon as there’s the slightest whiff of a bargain and end the downtick.  You couldn’t short Exxon to 15 no matter what you did.  However, the shorting of financials WAS and IS effective because they won’t let anyone look at their balance sheets (because they’re insolvent).  This is why the uptick rule won’t do a thing.  And while shorting a financial stock does make it more difficult for them to raise capital, it does not cut them off from capital once they turn to their investors, open their books and say, “See, we’re fine.”  They then get their cash and the stock lifts.  This is not what is happening because they are not fundamentally sound right now.

    Mike, was BAC, which has no reason to be nationalized, justified to run down to $3.00? No. Without an uptick rule the short-side could create a rumor and jam down a company’s equity and no bulls would stand in the way because it all happened so fast that nobody had enough time to think it through. An uptick rule wouldn’t remove legitimate downward pressure what it would do is make markets harder to game. You do see that don’t you? The uptick rule was first set into place to resist bear raids, right?

    Meanwhile after today’s open.

    Signature

    Black Swan Counter: 9 (Banks need money, Jobs needs a break, Geithner has no plan, Cuomo’s grandstanding, .Gov needs a hobby, GS works for money, flash crash, is that bubbling crude?).

    For those who look, a flash allows one to see farther.

         
  • Posted: 09 April 2009 10:55 AM #33

    Yeah, baby!  $119 and climbing.  I am dancing…but I’m saving the Bee Gees for $175.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 09 April 2009 10:56 AM #34

    Eric Landstrom - 09 April 2009 01:48 PM
    Mayor Quimby - 09 April 2009 11:52 AM
    Eric Landstrom - 08 April 2009 06:11 PM

    1/3rd of trading volume is done by people like myself. I do not have a way to jam down stocks. one several days 65% of banks stocks were sold sort, this would have been impossible with the uptick rule in place. This doesn’t mean that C shouldn’t have been valued at $0.97 a share but it does mean that it would have taken longer to get there and that the thousands of investors who were crushed and forced to sell under one dollar would have had an opportunity to get out earlier and without panic. The lack of an uptick rule sounded good in a bull market and even in an even market but in a bear market, its absence became a vehicle of bears to push down markets. I know this because I was one of the guys who saw what was happening and began shorting with impunity because bulls where getting steamrolled and America watched 1/2 of its wealth vanish.

    Near as I can tell, most traders are for an uptick rule and the people arguing against the uptick rule claiming that the sophisticated shorting programs that firms like Goldman Sachs use will not be affected, are money managers who tend to specialize in bearish positions. In other words the cons in the uptick rule discussion are talking their books and we’d carry the discussion further along if everybody realized that everybody is talking their books.

    Eric- I think this is just so silly (and you know I’m not talking my book - never have!).  There’s no effective way to short a stock into the ground if the company is sound because buyers step in as soon as there’s the slightest whiff of a bargain and end the downtick.  You couldn’t short Exxon to 15 no matter what you did.  However, the shorting of financials WAS and IS effective because they won’t let anyone look at their balance sheets (because they’re insolvent).  This is why the uptick rule won’t do a thing.  And while shorting a financial stock does make it more difficult for them to raise capital, it does not cut them off from capital once they turn to their investors, open their books and say, “See, we’re fine.”  They then get their cash and the stock lifts.  This is not what is happening because they are not fundamentally sound right now.

    Mike, was BAC, which has no reason to be nationalized, justified to run down to $3.00? No. Without an uptick rule the short-side could create a rumor and jam down a company’s equity and no bulls would stand in the way because it all happened so fast that nobody had enough time to think it through. An uptick rule wouldn’t remove legitimate downward pressure what it would do is make markets harder to game. You do see that don’t you? The uptick rule was first set into place to resist bear raids, right?

    Meanwhile after today’s open.

    Yes it was Eric.  Because it has ~13 figures (or more…or less) of liabilities because of Merrill!  Eric, you do see that don’t you?  If their balance sheets are fine, THEY WOULD ALLOW PEOPLE TO SEE THEM!  Since they’re not, well, technically, they could trade at a nickel.  Earnings are irrelevant for banks that are insolvent.  If their liabilities are too great, they fail.  That’s the way banks have worked for centuries.  Today is no different except Mr. Gvmt refuses to let nature take its course.

    [ Edited: 09 April 2009 10:59 AM by Mayor Quimby ]

    Signature

    The ends don’t justify the means…

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 09 April 2009 11:11 AM #35

    Mayor Quimby - 09 April 2009 01:56 PM

    Yes it was Eric.  Because it has ~13 figures (or more…or less) of liabilities because of Merrill!  Eric, you do see that don’t you?  If their balance sheets are fine, THEY WOULD ALLOW PEOPLE TO SEE THEM!  Since they’re not, well, technically, they could trade at a nickel.  Earnings are irrelevant for banks that are insolvent.  If their liabilities are too great, they fail.  That’s the way banks have worked for centuries.  Today is no different except Mr. Gvmt refuses to let nature take its course.

    Banks are ALWAYS insolvent.  That is the way the banking model works.  You get depositors money, you lend it out in long term loans.  Without the uptick rule you are allowing in effect a run on any bank.  Everyone bank will fail under that kind of pressure.

    In a bigger picture, I still cannot see why you need to allow short sales at all.  In every other commerce transaction, you cannot sell what you do not own.  In a falling housing market, can I just short sell your house?  I say let the people who actually hold the stocks decide how much it is worth, not someone who wants to gamble with other people’s property.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 09 April 2009 11:13 AM #36

    oldmac - 09 April 2009 02:11 PM
    Mayor Quimby - 09 April 2009 01:56 PM

    Yes it was Eric.  Because it has ~13 figures (or more…or less) of liabilities because of Merrill!  Eric, you do see that don’t you?  If their balance sheets are fine, THEY WOULD ALLOW PEOPLE TO SEE THEM!  Since they’re not, well, technically, they could trade at a nickel.  Earnings are irrelevant for banks that are insolvent.  If their liabilities are too great, they fail.  That’s the way banks have worked for centuries.  Today is no different except Mr. Gvmt refuses to let nature take its course.

    Banks are ALWAYS insolvent.  That is the way the banking model works.  You get depositors money, you lend it out in long term loans.  Without the uptick rule you are allowing in effect a run on any bank.  Everyone bank will fail under that kind of pressure.

    In a bigger picture, I still cannot see why you need to allow short sales at all.  In every other commerce transaction, you cannot sell what you do not own.  In a falling housing market, can I just short sell your house?  I say let the people who actually hold the stocks decide how much it is worth, not someone who wants to gamble with other people’s property.

    That’s simply not true.  We’re not talking about reserve ratios, we’re talking about loan liabilities which can be enormous.

    Signature

    The ends don’t justify the means…

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 09 April 2009 11:21 AM #37

    $119.40 and climbing.  Nice.

    Signature

    “Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens.”
    - Jimi Hendrix

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 09 April 2009 12:21 PM #38

    Mayor Quimby - 09 April 2009 02:13 PM
    oldmac - 09 April 2009 02:11 PM
    Mayor Quimby - 09 April 2009 01:56 PM

    Yes it was Eric.  Because it has ~13 figures (or more…or less) of liabilities because of Merrill!  Eric, you do see that don’t you?  If their balance sheets are fine, THEY WOULD ALLOW PEOPLE TO SEE THEM!  Since they’re not, well, technically, they could trade at a nickel.  Earnings are irrelevant for banks that are insolvent.  If their liabilities are too great, they fail.  That’s the way banks have worked for centuries.  Today is no different except Mr. Gvmt refuses to let nature take its course.

    Banks are ALWAYS insolvent.  That is the way the banking model works.  You get depositors money, you lend it out in long term loans.  Without the uptick rule you are allowing in effect a run on any bank.  Everyone bank will fail under that kind of pressure.

    In a bigger picture, I still cannot see why you need to allow short sales at all.  In every other commerce transaction, you cannot sell what you do not own.  In a falling housing market, can I just short sell your house?  I say let the people who actually hold the stocks decide how much it is worth, not someone who wants to gamble with other people’s property.

    That’s simply not true.  We’re not talking about reserve ratios, we’re talking about loan liabilities which can be enormous.

    The wealthiest nation in the world is suddenly saving at a 5% rate, Mike. Even with the expected spike in foreclosures looming (not the mention the expected looming defaults in the unsecured debt market and the new wave of CDS coming from commercial RE) which will increase the liabilities, the increase in American savings, when leveraged at an acceptable rate is expected to more than make up for increase of liabilities on the reserve ratio.

    At the same time I recognize that the banking sector faces challenges from the new normal of people who can still afford to spend are expected to only spend 86% of what they once spent in 2007 and that those who cannot afford to spend are obviously spending much less (cf. the two Americas). I further recognize that housing values?if not further depressed 10-15%?will be no higher than they are now even out as far as 2012.  However, when we work through this mess those who purchased the financials that survived will look like mad geniuses even if the financials only reach 50% of their former highs. I’m also not worried about the new regs suggesting that banks limit themselves to a 6x reserve ratio because there are a million ways to get around that through special purpose vehicles and what not.

    And if that doesn’t work then there is always the Warlording option.  snake

    [ Edited: 09 April 2009 12:25 PM by Eric Landstrom ]

    Signature

    Black Swan Counter: 9 (Banks need money, Jobs needs a break, Geithner has no plan, Cuomo’s grandstanding, .Gov needs a hobby, GS works for money, flash crash, is that bubbling crude?).

    For those who look, a flash allows one to see farther.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 09 April 2009 12:57 PM #39

    artman1033 - 09 April 2009 03:37 PM

    The UKRAINIAN ARMY!!!

    WHO KNEW?

    Short skirts, high heels…


    Is this a great world or what?

    Got Robert Palmer belting out “Addicted to Love” running through your head?

    Back to trading.

    This morning in the PM I was selling the banks and buying the ultras. On the open the ultras popped and the banks faded. Sort of. Now the market is going flat as the trading range increasingly narrows.

    I’m baffled why oil is running up but securities leveraged to oil are not moving as expected. To me this suggests people are rotating out of securities leveraged to long oil while money is moving in from the sidelines at the same time. I’m not falling for it and am going to hold onto my long oil positions since they are well into the green and I have a substantial buffer before discipline forces selling.

    Elsewhere the value plays are getting bid up. I think tech will lead any rallying work yet to unfold in the future but value is were we’re making money.

    [ Edited: 09 April 2009 01:00 PM by Eric Landstrom ]

    Signature

    Black Swan Counter: 9 (Banks need money, Jobs needs a break, Geithner has no plan, Cuomo’s grandstanding, .Gov needs a hobby, GS works for money, flash crash, is that bubbling crude?).

    For those who look, a flash allows one to see farther.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 09 April 2009 01:29 PM #40

    Looks like today’s downtrend from 10:30 intersects with support at 119 in about 30 minutes.


    Edit: broken to the upside. Lots of resistance at $119.60.

    [ Edited: 09 April 2009 01:52 PM by Play Ultimate ]

    Signature

    “Once we roared like lions for liberty; now we bleat like sheep for security! The solution for America’s problem is not in terms of big government, but it is in big men over whom nobody stands in control but God.”  ?Norman Vincent Peale

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 09 April 2009 02:06 PM #41

    Although I think we’re going to see continued churn, sentiment and outlook has changed with money sneaking in from the sidelines. With 540,000,000 shares traded so far today, people are covering out of BAC as well as buying BAC in the belief that even if we haven’t seen a bottom back on March 6th, it is a good bottom. Moreover, earning estimates are moving from negative outlooks to positive as net interest margins suggest that the major banks will be able to right themselves and that the Fed appears as though it will continue to keep rates at or near zero. 

    Although slow to react, if his actions work, Bernenke will go down as the greatest Fed Chairman of all time and the bears will wind up every bit as dazed and confused at the end of 20090 going into 2010 as the bulls did in 2007 going into 2008.

    Signature

    Black Swan Counter: 9 (Banks need money, Jobs needs a break, Geithner has no plan, Cuomo’s grandstanding, .Gov needs a hobby, GS works for money, flash crash, is that bubbling crude?).

    For those who look, a flash allows one to see farther.

         
  • Posted: 09 April 2009 02:11 PM #42

    artman1033 - 09 April 2009 05:08 PM

    Total Registered Members: 14504
    Total Topics: 61144
    Total Replies: 393750
    Total Posts: 454894
    Total Logged-in Users: 34
    Total Anonymous Users: 5
    Total Guests: 420
    Newest Members:  Clarck,  dailiang11,  abelcom13,  high483,  Lostlazy,  Stanks,  Robyin Gram,  bolev,  rhazelrigg,  macfan!
    Active Members:  artman1033,  BillH,  bluebox,  Brad Cook,  BurmaYank,  ChasMac77,  colmaclean,  ctopher,  davidneale,  DawnTreader,  Dean Lewis,  Eric Landstrom,  ericmurphy,  eugenio,  FlipFriddle,  Hannibal,  iBill,  idannyb,  jimothy,  LarryInAz,  lh,  litespeed,  macZiggy,  mahuti,  mbmullin,  Photodan,  Play Ultimate,  ppartekim,  rattyuk,  Robbo,  sleepytoo,  SNIPUS,  sstenner,  vasic

    FROM HERE AT BOTTOM OF PAGE.

    Looks like a lot of lurkers, few posters today!

    Where am I in this list? I am online and active all day?  rolleyes

    Edit: I just don’t have anything to post right now. Just watching and enjoying my AAPL calls surge as well as all the other stocks I am owning - besides SRS of course.

    [ Edited: 09 April 2009 02:18 PM by Plato ]

    Signature

    “We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.” - Aesop

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 09 April 2009 02:26 PM #43

    I should announce that the sponge bought some stock before market opened this morning.

    I bought 5000 shares of etrade and 100 shares of aapl.  I think there might still be some strength to this bear rally, which could continue into May and June.  We shall see. the plan is to dump it all at some point.  Not sure if I will keep aapl through earnings. 

    Aapl has been doing better then the market, so I think there is a good chance that if earnings come in stronger then expected and the new iPhone appears to be a hit, we could see the stock going to 130.  I will dump it at that time and wait for a pull back.  Given its rise, I am reluctant to think we could see 60’s anytime soon.  But now we could still drop below 100 before year’s end.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 09 April 2009 02:44 PM #44

    Plato - 09 April 2009 05:11 PM
    artman1033 - 09 April 2009 05:08 PM

    Total Registered Members: 14504
    Total Topics: 61144
    Total Replies: 393750
    Total Posts: 454894
    Total Logged-in Users: 34
    Total Anonymous Users: 5
    Total Guests: 420
    Newest Members:  Clarck,  dailiang11,  abelcom13,  high483,  Lostlazy,  Stanks,  Robyin Gram,  bolev,  rhazelrigg,  macfan!
    Active Members:  artman1033,  BillH,  bluebox,  Brad Cook,  BurmaYank,  ChasMac77,  colmaclean,  ctopher,  davidneale,  DawnTreader,  Dean Lewis,  Eric Landstrom,  ericmurphy,  eugenio,  FlipFriddle,  Hannibal,  iBill,  idannyb,  jimothy,  LarryInAz,  lh,  litespeed,  macZiggy,  mahuti,  mbmullin,  Photodan,  Play Ultimate,  ppartekim,  rattyuk,  Robbo,  sleepytoo,  SNIPUS,  sstenner,  vasic

    FROM HERE AT BOTTOM OF PAGE.

    Looks like a lot of lurkers, few posters today!

    Where am I in this list? I am online and active all day?  rolleyes

    Edit: I just don’t have anything to post right now. Just watching and enjoying my AAPL calls surge as well as all the other stocks I am owning - besides SRS of course.

    You’re in stealth mode, Plato.

    Although I was a half-step behind all the best moves yesterday, eventually I ejected the SRS core because I expected today would be an up day. I picked SRS today in PM as a trading hedge sold it for a profit and then came back in only to get stopped out and then came back in again to reset my hedge. I am currently long with SRS with a fiddy-cent stop.

    AAPL wise, I still have a small remnant position so I keep my eye on ball. I’d consider the AAPL trade I mapped out earlier in the week (put buying, going long, call selling, flipping short).

    Signature

    Black Swan Counter: 9 (Banks need money, Jobs needs a break, Geithner has no plan, Cuomo’s grandstanding, .Gov needs a hobby, GS works for money, flash crash, is that bubbling crude?).

    For those who look, a flash allows one to see farther.

         
  • Posted: 09 April 2009 03:06 PM #45

    Eric Landstrom - 09 April 2009 05:44 PM
    Plato - 09 April 2009 05:11 PM
    artman1033 - 09 April 2009 05:08 PM

    Total Registered Members: 14504
    Total Topics: 61144
    Total Replies: 393750
    Total Posts: 454894
    Total Logged-in Users: 34
    Total Anonymous Users: 5
    Total Guests: 420
    Newest Members:  Clarck,  dailiang11,  abelcom13,  high483,  Lostlazy,  Stanks,  Robyin Gram,  bolev,  rhazelrigg,  macfan!
    Active Members:  artman1033,  BillH,  bluebox,  Brad Cook,  BurmaYank,  ChasMac77,  colmaclean,  ctopher,  davidneale,  DawnTreader,  Dean Lewis,  Eric Landstrom,  ericmurphy,  eugenio,  FlipFriddle,  Hannibal,  iBill,  idannyb,  jimothy,  LarryInAz,  lh,  litespeed,  macZiggy,  mahuti,  mbmullin,  Photodan,  Play Ultimate,  ppartekim,  rattyuk,  Robbo,  sleepytoo,  SNIPUS,  sstenner,  vasic

    FROM HERE AT BOTTOM OF PAGE.

    Looks like a lot of lurkers, few posters today!

    Where am I in this list? I am online and active all day?  rolleyes

    Edit: I just don’t have anything to post right now. Just watching and enjoying my AAPL calls surge as well as all the other stocks I am owning - besides SRS of course.

    You’re in stealth mode, Plato.

    Although I was a half-step behind all the best moves yesterday, eventually I ejected the SRS core because I expected today would be an up day. I picked SRS today in PM as a trading hedge sold it for a profit and then came back in only to get stopped out and then came back in again to reset my hedge. I am currently long with SRS with a fiddy-cent stop.

    AAPL wise, I still have a small remnant position so I keep my eye on ball. I’d consider the AAPL trade I mapped out earlier in the week (put buying, going long, call selling, flipping short).

    OK I confess - your SRS trades confuse the heck out of me.

    Honestly though - did you make money on your SRS trade today? It only went one direction today - and that was down! What indicators did you use to get in/out, if I may ask?

    Signature

    “We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.” - Aesop