Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Claudio Lizzola
Is this you? Claim Profile »
5 months ago
in Trade Apple Like a Fool on Investor in the Wilderness
Now we are in agreement! If you say that AAPL has a better chance of success than 99% of the companies out there it means that "eventually" the people who invest on it won't be "truly fools".
Which was exactly my initial contention when you wrote the exact opposite.
Which was exactly my initial contention when you wrote the exact opposite.
1 reply
Zach Bass
You are correct Claudio. I should be clear that they would be near-term fools.
5 months ago
in Trade Apple Like a Fool on Investor in the Wilderness
OK Zach,
As you said TA is the most valid instrument for ALL (in capital letters) time frames. I cannot argue on that because I do not have any technical knowledge. But TA is based on past events from which it is possible (perhaps) to extrapolate the future. How far in the future? The expression you used "eventually" implies that AAPL will never be where the fundamentals would put it. And that, to me, seems inconsistent on your side especially considering that many times you said that you were bullish on AAPL on the long run. Certainly you were bullish when the stock was up. Now you are bearish, even for an extra long run, because the stock is down. To me that looks like predicting the weather just looking out of the window.
As you said TA is the most valid instrument for ALL (in capital letters) time frames. I cannot argue on that because I do not have any technical knowledge. But TA is based on past events from which it is possible (perhaps) to extrapolate the future. How far in the future? The expression you used "eventually" implies that AAPL will never be where the fundamentals would put it. And that, to me, seems inconsistent on your side especially considering that many times you said that you were bullish on AAPL on the long run. Certainly you were bullish when the stock was up. Now you are bearish, even for an extra long run, because the stock is down. To me that looks like predicting the weather just looking out of the window.
1 reply
Zach Bass
I did not say "the most valid", I said "viable for ALL time frames." TA looks at past patterns to help predict future moves. In much the same way we look at an asteroid, and project its future path based on it's current trajectory.
The problem right now is that this secular bear market we are in is nearly 9 years old, and it's not finished yet. When will it turn? I have no idea. Maybe 2 years, maybe 2 decades. Sure there will be rallies, and we should play them for all they're worth.
Taking a bullish position on Apple can be both relative and absolute. I certainly think that Apple, relative to most other companies out there will be bullish. Now the question is, will it be bullish in absolute terms. What if they continue to make money, but the stock goes down? Then what?
I think in the long term, Apple has a better chance of success than 99 percent of the companies out there. And so from that point of view, I'm bullish. But will I put my money on it right now? No. Because the time frames are different. I want a return within weeks or months. An investment in AAPL may not provide a return much further down the road. And it's not because of Apple, it's because of the economic morass we are currently in.
The problem right now is that this secular bear market we are in is nearly 9 years old, and it's not finished yet. When will it turn? I have no idea. Maybe 2 years, maybe 2 decades. Sure there will be rallies, and we should play them for all they're worth.
Taking a bullish position on Apple can be both relative and absolute. I certainly think that Apple, relative to most other companies out there will be bullish. Now the question is, will it be bullish in absolute terms. What if they continue to make money, but the stock goes down? Then what?
I think in the long term, Apple has a better chance of success than 99 percent of the companies out there. And so from that point of view, I'm bullish. But will I put my money on it right now? No. Because the time frames are different. I want a return within weeks or months. An investment in AAPL may not provide a return much further down the road. And it's not because of Apple, it's because of the economic morass we are currently in.
5 months ago
in Trade Apple Like a Fool on Investor in the Wilderness
Zach,
This time you have exceeded the threshold of good sense and, let me add, of good faith. You state: "Well, if you’re an Apple perma-bull, then you’ve probably convinced yourself that the undeniably strong Apple fundamentals will eventually trump the market. If you believe this, then you truly are a fool."
I believe that you are the fool here. You write that not even "eventually" (look in the dictionary what this word means) the strong fundamentals of APPL will take over. How can you say that? What makes you think that in one, two or ten years Apple won't be again on top?
You always stated that technical analysis is valid only for the short term. Where did you buy the long term crystal ball?
This time you have exceeded the threshold of good sense and, let me add, of good faith. You state: "Well, if you’re an Apple perma-bull, then you’ve probably convinced yourself that the undeniably strong Apple fundamentals will eventually trump the market. If you believe this, then you truly are a fool."
I believe that you are the fool here. You write that not even "eventually" (look in the dictionary what this word means) the strong fundamentals of APPL will take over. How can you say that? What makes you think that in one, two or ten years Apple won't be again on top?
You always stated that technical analysis is valid only for the short term. Where did you buy the long term crystal ball?
1 reply
Zach Bass
Claudio, I never said that Technical Analysis was only good for the short term. What I said was that TA was an excellent tool for picking entry and exit points in the short-term. I believe TA is viable for ALL time frames, far more so than fundamentals.
My philosophy for choosing stocks is really 3-fold; Use screens to pair down the list, use fundamentals to further limit that list to strong, well heeled companies, and use TA to determine entry and exit points on positions. My philosophy on reading the market however, is purely technical.
My philosophy for choosing stocks is really 3-fold; Use screens to pair down the list, use fundamentals to further limit that list to strong, well heeled companies, and use TA to determine entry and exit points on positions. My philosophy on reading the market however, is purely technical.
9 months ago
in Apple Investors are Shorts to Blame for this Mess? on Investor in the Wilderness
Thom, I also like you and respect you but I resent you imply I am an hypocrite. When I sold my stock I did it because I had purchased it in the first place at a lesser price. I didn't sell something I didn't own. Buy low, sell high. And that makes a huge difference because my sales didn't have any potential of creating me a loss. To the contrary, if I sold something that I didn't own and that I had to purchase later on, I run the potential risk of having to pay much more than my sale price. The first transaction is not a gamble, the second is.
But the week point in your answer is when you state "...millions use margin every day and pay back their debts fine." As you know, the mess we are in is because somebody is absolutely not able to pay back their debts. Forget if it is about margins, loans, collaterals or what have you. When solid cash is not behind actions, you walk on thin ice.
But the week point in your answer is when you state "...millions use margin every day and pay back their debts fine." As you know, the mess we are in is because somebody is absolutely not able to pay back their debts. Forget if it is about margins, loans, collaterals or what have you. When solid cash is not behind actions, you walk on thin ice.
2 replies
Thom
You also decry speculators and you have engaged in speculation.
Thom
Also Claudio, yes poor use of credit is a major culprit here but we're talking 30:1 levels here. I know that my margin account doesn't give me that much rope to hang myself with.
It just seems to me that this crisis have really brought out the crazy in all of us. I hate to say it but if anybody had been trading these past couple of months you were unreasonably greedy. I called going to cash after Apple failed to break 170 2 months ago. Yeah I missed the big 5 day rally but so what? I missed all this crap too. I've been pure cash because as I've stated this is only the beginning of this mess and until a clear direction is established then it is a casino with no free drinks. Expect oil to get to 140 again and stabilize from the diluted dollar.
It just seems to me that this crisis have really brought out the crazy in all of us. I hate to say it but if anybody had been trading these past couple of months you were unreasonably greedy. I called going to cash after Apple failed to break 170 2 months ago. Yeah I missed the big 5 day rally but so what? I missed all this crap too. I've been pure cash because as I've stated this is only the beginning of this mess and until a clear direction is established then it is a casino with no free drinks. Expect oil to get to 140 again and stabilize from the diluted dollar.
9 months ago
in Apple Investors are Shorts to Blame for this Mess? on Investor in the Wilderness
I am one of the people who wrote to you against short selling. I never called the people that go short evil or monsters: this is just a gratuitous and undue add-on on your part. What I wrote was:
"I personally think that speculators and all the tools they have available have transformed the stock market in a business that can be easily manipulated and, more in general, in something more similar to a Las Vegas crap table than to a place where to put your savings.
I believe there is a huge difference between speculators and investors and it is too bad that they have to operate in the same market. Speculators just bet, investors don't because you don't bet using your savings.
The best thing for the stock market would be that shares are bought with real money without any tool for leverage other than the credit of each individual investor. If a company doesn't perform as expected its value will decrease and the shareholder may sell his investment in it taking the inevitable loss. If a company goes well the value of the shares will grow because more investors would like to buy them. This is free market. A market that has real substance, shares that are really "priced to perfection" and investors that reap benefits or suffer losses in a acceptable and orderly way.
Speculators should have no place in this market and without them the market will not be less free but more.
What you call free market is free only to manipulators.
You favor the capability of shorting: selling shares you don't own but that you borrow from who actually owns them. This borrowing is made without the individual investor that owns the shares knows about that. If he knew he will almost certainly not make the shares available for loan because it is against his best interest because their value will decrease. I think shares should not be available to short sellers unless the owner of the shares agrees to the loan and gets a price for it."
To answer your question I agree with you that is the Government (not just the current one) that let things degenerate to this point.
But among the many corrective actions that are necessary there is also the need to separate the investors market from the speculators market.
"I personally think that speculators and all the tools they have available have transformed the stock market in a business that can be easily manipulated and, more in general, in something more similar to a Las Vegas crap table than to a place where to put your savings.
I believe there is a huge difference between speculators and investors and it is too bad that they have to operate in the same market. Speculators just bet, investors don't because you don't bet using your savings.
The best thing for the stock market would be that shares are bought with real money without any tool for leverage other than the credit of each individual investor. If a company doesn't perform as expected its value will decrease and the shareholder may sell his investment in it taking the inevitable loss. If a company goes well the value of the shares will grow because more investors would like to buy them. This is free market. A market that has real substance, shares that are really "priced to perfection" and investors that reap benefits or suffer losses in a acceptable and orderly way.
Speculators should have no place in this market and without them the market will not be less free but more.
What you call free market is free only to manipulators.
You favor the capability of shorting: selling shares you don't own but that you borrow from who actually owns them. This borrowing is made without the individual investor that owns the shares knows about that. If he knew he will almost certainly not make the shares available for loan because it is against his best interest because their value will decrease. I think shares should not be available to short sellers unless the owner of the shares agrees to the loan and gets a price for it."
To answer your question I agree with you that is the Government (not just the current one) that let things degenerate to this point.
But among the many corrective actions that are necessary there is also the need to separate the investors market from the speculators market.
2 replies
Thom
Claudio, you know I like you but I gotta call you on this. I've helped you "gamble" as you call it. I watched you trade shares of aapl, sell them in a day or two and take profit, wait and buy more shares at lower prices and run them up again and even more money. Why is ok for you to speculate on that but no one else? Because you really love Apple? C'mon. You may know that but the stock doesn't care. So you don't use margin, wise move but millions use margin every day and pay back their debts fine. Should margins be made tighter, sure. ALL debt levels need to be seriously reconsidered in this country/world. The problem is when crisis' occurr too often the baby gets thrown out with the bath water.
Speculation is fine, it's what makes markets liquid. Leverage is fine when used wisely. Shorting is fine, it's what allows us to hedge.
Macfan, stop be a self rightous troll. If you hate sack so much go somewhere else, it's sacks sight after all. Man up and start your own super altrulistic fun site I'f you such the egoless analyst.
Speculation is fine, it's what makes markets liquid. Leverage is fine when used wisely. Shorting is fine, it's what allows us to hedge.
Macfan, stop be a self rightous troll. If you hate sack so much go somewhere else, it's sacks sight after all. Man up and start your own super altrulistic fun site I'f you such the egoless analyst.
macfan
Like McCain said...they have turned wall street into a casino. Claudio, that was the best response to any of these blogs.
Just because you can do something does not mean it is a good idea. Zach, find your moral compass.
Just because you can do something does not mean it is a good idea. Zach, find your moral compass.
9 months ago
in Apple Leading the Way to a Total Tech Breakdown on Investor in the Wilderness
Zach,
You are listing a number of undenyable facts concerning your charts and the technical analysis you draw from them. You forgot to add one fact: that technical analysis is by no means an undisputed indication of market direction. In fact, a month ago, using your same technical analysis principles, you proclaimed that the bear market was over.
So what you say has actually no value other than advising that the bear situation suggests prudence. Which, by the way, is not a big discovery in these difficult times.
I know you are a believer in Apple future but, after you started to send panic signals because of your unfortunate bad experience with the first iPhones you had (panic signals that nobody else shared), you are putting all your efforts to make the AAPL situation even worse.
As a member of the Investor in the Wilderness I recently asked you to represent to Apple the need to stop their stance of not declaring the income from the iPhone. If they stopped, it will go on a long way to a better future for AAPL shares to the benefit of all investors.
You are listing a number of undenyable facts concerning your charts and the technical analysis you draw from them. You forgot to add one fact: that technical analysis is by no means an undisputed indication of market direction. In fact, a month ago, using your same technical analysis principles, you proclaimed that the bear market was over.
So what you say has actually no value other than advising that the bear situation suggests prudence. Which, by the way, is not a big discovery in these difficult times.
I know you are a believer in Apple future but, after you started to send panic signals because of your unfortunate bad experience with the first iPhones you had (panic signals that nobody else shared), you are putting all your efforts to make the AAPL situation even worse.
As a member of the Investor in the Wilderness I recently asked you to represent to Apple the need to stop their stance of not declaring the income from the iPhone. If they stopped, it will go on a long way to a better future for AAPL shares to the benefit of all investors.
1 reply
Zach Bass
Claudio, I'm not putting any extra effort or trying to manipulate or justify my positions by painting a bleak picture. I'm simply providing analysis of the near-term as I see it.
Reporting iPhone revenue does provide a degree of instability, so I agree with your stance. But that's a metric that Apple has established with analysts and the investment community. I also think they use the reporting as a competitive advantage.
Reporting iPhone revenue does provide a degree of instability, so I agree with your stance. But that's a metric that Apple has established with analysts and the investment community. I also think they use the reporting as a competitive advantage.
