-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Stock-Age: Stocks, Options and Dividends oh my!
- Thread starter koam
- Start date
spiderman123
Member
bathala said:
Up to you, Stock Market is a game of emotions.
mavs said:
It's proven to work given the history. The evidence is right there. Now to be fair, there is also a huge difference between then and now. Technological, social, political, economical and financial. Especially Technological and Financial. So whether or not it is possible now, I don't know.
TheRagnCajun
Member
bathala said:
Well its up to you, but gold's cost isn't equal to its intrinsic value. Its only worth what somebody is willing to pay for it. Thats why I say its superficial. Company shares are worth what the company is worth, ideally.
TheRagnCajun said:
I don't believe our current macroeconomic climate favors company stocks in general (obviously there are execpetions to this, but finding those is hard). I can see company stocks starting to rise again here shortly, and then in 2012-2013 we get another debt ceiling shenanigan and we're back to sub 11,000 Dow. In all that time, gold will continue to rise, only to get another massive bump when the next self-inflicted crisis hits, which it will.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
jamesinclair said:
Looks like it all comes down to Friday. Will you be a legend or just some guy who got lucky.
spiderman123
Member
TheRagnCajun said:
Also driven by people's faith especially the lack of faith in U.S dollar ATM. Remember what is money, just a recognized form of legal tender. Has no inherent value and is only confidence based.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
spiderman123 said:
Of course, inflation could shrink the debt, and you point out an article that says this is what happened after WWII, but why did inflation happen in the first place after WWII, which led to the erosion of the debt?
Before WWII, there was excess production capacity, just like in our case. Government coffers were empty the day before they declared war against Germany, only for the situation to reserve the following day. In Canada, at the height of the depression, the mayor of Montreal told all citizens that the premier had told him the coffers were empty, yet the following day Canada entered the war, and we saw indescribable levels of production kick in, tanks coming out of the factories only to be recycled right before they left the tracks, the port was expanding every day, people were flush with cash, industry was running at full speed 24 hours a day, seven days a week, everyone was employed, men and women, etc.
The level of production capacity (excessive or insufficient) is relative to the level of demand.
In the case of WWII, the level of demand rose because of war and as a result of this production capacity tilted from excessive to insufficient. High demand and insufficient production capacity leads to spending to raise production capacity to meet demand.
After WWII, Europe and many parts of the world were in shambles and had to be rebuilt. This, and other conditions and events during the following decades led to a continued increase in demand levels, which required spending to increase production capacity to meet said demand levels.
When I said "we either cancel debts and start spending again, or destroy production capacity", I didn't literally mean that we would cancel debt, but rather prevent debt from being an obstacle to spending. Debt is merely a value. Value is established in relation to optimal productivity cost.
Inflation is this: To run our economy at optimal levels of productivity VS the current levels of demand (meaning, levels where production capacity satisfies demand), it costs X. When the level of demand rises, the cost to remain at the optimal level of productivity VS demand will rise as well since production capacity must rise: it will now cost Y. This causes X (the previous cost associated with optimal levels of productivity VS the level of demand) to hold a lower value than Y (the current cost associated with optimal levels of productivity VS the level of demand). This is inflation. That's why a bag of chips costs more today than a few decades ago. The cost associated with production to meet the demand levels has continuously increased. This is normal, otherwise it would mean that it would be possible to satisfy rising demand without increasing production. This would be like being able to push a rock that is continuously getting heavier without using more energy. It is not possible.
So for inflation to occur the cost of optimal productivity must rise, which means demand must rise, so as to require an increase in production capacity, which will require additional spending.
Inflation is NOT a tool from the Fed's toolbox. It's not a "trick" someone can resort to. Bernankites seem to think that all they need to do to generate inflation is to spend, but without an increase in demand this is highly inefficient! It's the equivalent of throwing food at people who are not hungry in the hopes that it will make them hungrier. It's monetary-supply-side economics!
Deflation occurs when you have a cost of optimal productivity VS demand which is lower than what it was previously, and this happens when the demand level falls. Lower demand means you don't need to produce as much as before to satisfy demand, which means it doesn't cost as much as it did to have optimal productivity. Value falls. Deflation.
So two things can increase the current cost of optimal productivity VS demand:
1- Production capacity (factories, houses, transportation, people, etc.) is destroyed to the point where current production capacity reaches optimal level VS current demand levels.
2- Demand rises due to some other circumstance(s).
During WWII, production capacity went from excessive to insufficient even before anything major was destroyed, so initially demand was driven upward without massive destruction, only by the "game" of war. Basically, moving chess pieces around for the most part. That was #2. Later on, demand was driven upward due to destruction of production capacity, that was the situation #1.
All sorts of things could drive demand upward without destruction of capacity, but which way will things go?
Like I said before, this is inevitable. It is #1, or #2. Things can never go any other way. The economy is natural selection. Natural selection rules, we can't escape it, and it always catches up to us.
Speedymanic
Banned
NMV. Found the details. Will call them later today.
spiderman123
Member
Ether_Snake said:
Firstly, sorry for deleting half your response but it was long. I agree regarding deflation especially when you have excess aggregate supply vs demand. The current central bank policy has interest rates relatively close to 0 and the problem with that is that we will enter a liquidity trap ( recent economist have acknowledge example Krugman). So the current and proposed monetary policy is somewhat ineffective in stimulating demand the other proposal is fiscal policy. Reduce Taxes and Increase spending. Give the consumer increase Disposable Income (that and prob resort to price ceilings) to pay off debts and increase consumption. Which can offset deflation.
But I understand where your coming from and your probably right since the problem here is consumer confidence.
But too fully understand your argument are you talking about what happen to Japan in the 1990's
And Thank you for clarifying the cancellation of debt. I literally thought you meant that.
TheRagnCajun
Member
I'm going to be jumping in with $5000 real money sometime in the next 4 weeks I think. Here are my picks:
SNE
NTDOY
MSFT
ERTS
Yes, they're all tied into videogames. Its what I know.
SNE and NTDOY are super-low right now. 6-year low for Nintendo, and pretty much all-time low for Sony if you don't count the recession. Sony has some excess baggage, bad business, like TVs, but low expecations and fear are already factored into the price.
MSFT is undervalued as a whole. They are taking strides to regain relevance and marketshare in their bread-and-butter businesses yet investor fear keeps their price down.
ERTS has two cash cows on the very-near horizon. They are reporting record-breaking preorders for BF3 and SWTOR. I've heard and seen my fair share of impressions on both games and I have full confidence. Also, Origin is a very good thing. EA may have some ideas about it that aren't gamer-freindly, but the move to DD is wise, especially in light of this month's NDP report which shows that physical retail is dwindling.
As a whole I'm betting on the industry. All the major players are valued quite low (with the exception of ATVI), and I see nothing but growth for the industry for the next 5 years. Sony and Microsoft have their excess baggage, but I feel comfortable about their valuation.
SNE
NTDOY
MSFT
ERTS
Yes, they're all tied into videogames. Its what I know.
SNE and NTDOY are super-low right now. 6-year low for Nintendo, and pretty much all-time low for Sony if you don't count the recession. Sony has some excess baggage, bad business, like TVs, but low expecations and fear are already factored into the price.
MSFT is undervalued as a whole. They are taking strides to regain relevance and marketshare in their bread-and-butter businesses yet investor fear keeps their price down.
ERTS has two cash cows on the very-near horizon. They are reporting record-breaking preorders for BF3 and SWTOR. I've heard and seen my fair share of impressions on both games and I have full confidence. Also, Origin is a very good thing. EA may have some ideas about it that aren't gamer-freindly, but the move to DD is wise, especially in light of this month's NDP report which shows that physical retail is dwindling.
As a whole I'm betting on the industry. All the major players are valued quite low (with the exception of ATVI), and I see nothing but growth for the industry for the next 5 years. Sony and Microsoft have their excess baggage, but I feel comfortable about their valuation.
TheRagnCajun said:
I would stay away from sony right now. They are in a bad corner at the moment with a number of issues. A number of investment they made years ago are not panning out as expected. (blu-ray, 3D) Their management does not seem capable of pulling them out anytime soon. Consumer electronics in general is very volatile and risky for investing.
Scarecrow said:
If you are truly in it for the long haul, possibly. Probably better to wait. The market is still overinflated.
TheRagnCajun
Member
GaimeGuy said:
Thats not the idea. I was only acknowledging that they are in the business.
Spl1nter said:
I have full confidence in Howard Stringer and Kaz Hirai. They have spent the last 7 years salvaging what they could out of a bad situation created by their predecessors. The bad news is already there in the price, and I honestly don't see how they can go much lower.
The market as a whole isn't overinflated. Only some sectors are (especially technology, we probably are in the midst of a tech bubble 2.0). Large caps are generally undervalued, trading at lower valuations than they've seen in decades, and some particular sectors (such as financials and industrials) are on the cheap if ou can select strong companies.Spl1nter said:
It's all about your choices. There are some amazing deals at current levels.
SlipperySlope
Banned
Heh, I went on a binge today.
Bought some LOGI, NTDOY, and MIDD.
All stocks I already owned, but I'm filling out the positions. LOGI is currently in a management shakeup, but the fundamentals are strong. They've had a few mishaps (like GoogleTV), but will survive them. The stock price is very cheap as a result.
NTDOY, you all know about.
MIDD is still growing very strong in both earnings and revenues. They're still snapping up multiple companies at a time and churning profits out of them (three companies in the last quarter alone). All market-leading companies too. MIDD is looking to take over the industry. The CEO, Selim Bassoul, is basically the Bill Gates of the cooking equipment manufacturing industry. One fun thing to do is listen to one of their conference calls.
Bought some LOGI, NTDOY, and MIDD.
All stocks I already owned, but I'm filling out the positions. LOGI is currently in a management shakeup, but the fundamentals are strong. They've had a few mishaps (like GoogleTV), but will survive them. The stock price is very cheap as a result.
NTDOY, you all know about.
MIDD is still growing very strong in both earnings and revenues. They're still snapping up multiple companies at a time and churning profits out of them (three companies in the last quarter alone). All market-leading companies too. MIDD is looking to take over the industry. The CEO, Selim Bassoul, is basically the Bill Gates of the cooking equipment manufacturing industry. One fun thing to do is listen to one of their conference calls.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
ERTS and TTWO are good buys in the game sector right now. TTWO has come a long way since their one-trick-pony days. They can turn almost anything into a success, even games that no one would usually want to publish. So I'm fairly confident in them, and still think they will be eventually be bought out. ATVI would be the most likely ones to buy them, since ATVI has terrible management outside of COD and WoW and they are unable to identify likely hits.
ERTS has shown they know what they are doing. They are not going down. They fall when the industry falls, but they are the only ones that have what it takes to make a guaranteed come back when this happens.
I re-bought some TTWO recently, and have held ERTS for some time now (sold half my position when it was up 40% some time ago).
ERTS has shown they know what they are doing. They are not going down. They fall when the industry falls, but they are the only ones that have what it takes to make a guaranteed come back when this happens.
I re-bought some TTWO recently, and have held ERTS for some time now (sold half my position when it was up 40% some time ago).
spiderman123
Member
Hey heads up this week on Fareed Zakaria
Sunday @ 10a & 1p ET - Then, two of the most important economists in the world: Paul Krugman and Ken Rogoff on how to fix what ails us. I'll tell you why China will never stop buying our debt.
Totally recommend this.
Sunday @ 10a & 1p ET - Then, two of the most important economists in the world: Paul Krugman and Ken Rogoff on how to fix what ails us. I'll tell you why China will never stop buying our debt.
Totally recommend this.
Why are you guys buying Nintendo? Crazy.
High quality dividend stocks, stuff like PG, MCD, KO, JNJ, ADP and some non US stuff that is solid dividend payers, maybe some good Utilities too for long term stuff, short term, keep cash and maybe write some OOTM cash secured puts.
High quality dividend stocks, stuff like PG, MCD, KO, JNJ, ADP and some non US stuff that is solid dividend payers, maybe some good Utilities too for long term stuff, short term, keep cash and maybe write some OOTM cash secured puts.
Large Professor
Member
Fatghost said:
Selling out of the money (and indeed cash secured!) puts may not be a bad strategy considering the current volatility.
I'm getting ready to enter the stocks market, and will ask my bank for a meeting with an investor, who'll hopefully can share his knowledge and control my long-term investments.
But I would like to get into it all and control the short-term investments myself. What do you guys do to stay in-the-know? Do you keep a close eye to the companies you buy stocks from?
An I reading this right, that one stock in Apple Inc. costs $376,91 at the moment?
I thought it was much much much higher some weeks ago?
So let's say as an example (I'm really trying to understand the basics first and foremost), if I buy a stock in Apple for $376,91, and I believe it'll rise when iPhone 5 is revealed, then the stocks will go up and my investment will have a higher value, correct?
At the same time, if I invest in one Nintendo stock (I can buy more stocks in a single company right?) and I believe the 3DS and Wii U launches will bomb, then I'll lose the money I have invested on it if I decide to sell, yea?
Last thing is, I can never lose more money than what I invest right? I mean, if I invest $300, I will never have to owe anything to anyone - the only thing that can happen is, that my stocks go down and I can't sell them for more than what I bought them for?
PS: I plan on investing $10,000, not in one splash mind you, just along the way in 2012. Will need to have the basics set in stone, have an understanding of the market, how you prepare and get some practice before I enter the market. Maybe even buy one little stock this year and see how it fares.
Any respond to my post is highly appreciated.
EDIT:
Just signed up at Investopedia.com as well.
But I would like to get into it all and control the short-term investments myself. What do you guys do to stay in-the-know? Do you keep a close eye to the companies you buy stocks from?
An I reading this right, that one stock in Apple Inc. costs $376,91 at the moment?
I thought it was much much much higher some weeks ago?
So let's say as an example (I'm really trying to understand the basics first and foremost), if I buy a stock in Apple for $376,91, and I believe it'll rise when iPhone 5 is revealed, then the stocks will go up and my investment will have a higher value, correct?
At the same time, if I invest in one Nintendo stock (I can buy more stocks in a single company right?) and I believe the 3DS and Wii U launches will bomb, then I'll lose the money I have invested on it if I decide to sell, yea?
Last thing is, I can never lose more money than what I invest right? I mean, if I invest $300, I will never have to owe anything to anyone - the only thing that can happen is, that my stocks go down and I can't sell them for more than what I bought them for?
PS: I plan on investing $10,000, not in one splash mind you, just along the way in 2012. Will need to have the basics set in stone, have an understanding of the market, how you prepare and get some practice before I enter the market. Maybe even buy one little stock this year and see how it fares.
Any respond to my post is highly appreciated.
EDIT:
Just signed up at Investopedia.com as well.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Considering the highs and lows of the last decade, and that the company isn't exactly hurting, it seems there's more potential for gain than loss by this point.Fatghost said:
Anastacio said:
It's always a good idea to keep up with the news regarding your investments, as whatever reason makes you believe a company is worth buying may turn around the next morning. Doing so allows you to know when your stock may go south and sell before it drops dramatically, where an uninformed person will be left with a worthless stock wondering WTF happened.
There are many ways you can keep up with your companies, but I personally use two websites mainly:
-CNNMoney.com for broad market and economic news, along with real-time quotes and some company specific data and analysis
-Yahoo! Finance to keep track of my portfolio. Once you've added your portfolio to the website, it creates a stream of all the news regarding every one of your investments (and their competition. For example, as an Apple investor, I'd want to know if RIM releases new phones that may eat the iPhone's breakfast. Yahoo! Finance will tell me if that's the case).
It was somewhat higher a few weeks ago (if I recall, it hit a ceiling around $404), but that was before the market tanked 15%. Apple held up pretty well considering the market's performance. Everyone's analysis is different, but I still believe it's pretty cheap at this price.
Not quite. Your beliefs will influence which companies you buy in in the first place, but they will not influence your performance.
A better logic would be:
I believe Apple will rise once the iPhone 5 is revealed. Therefore, I buy Apple stock with the expectation that I'll make money with the stock in the coming months. If I'm right and the stock skyrockets to $450, I win $80 a share. If my prediction turns out wrong and earnings drop, the stock will drop to, say, $300 and I'll lose $70 for every share I own.
As for Nintendo, if you believe its future products will bomb, it wouldn't make sense to invest in it in the first place. (you could short it, but if you're just starting out you'd better stay away from that for the time being) You'd steer clear because buying with such a belief amounts to volunteering to lose money. But, if you don't buy because you believe 3DS and Wii U will bomb, and they turn out to be massively popular, you miss out on the massive earnings they'll bring.
In other words, you're betting on a company's future profit. If you think it'll make a bigger profit in the coming months or years, you buy. If you think it'll make less money or even run losses, you sell. It's all a bet on future profitability of the companies you invest in.
That's correct, unless you have a margin account. In a normal account, the only money you stand to lose is the money you invest in the first place ($10000 in your case), but if you borrow to invest (that's what a margin account is), then you could owe money if you end up losing on your investments.
Fantastic answers, absolutely magnificent and appreciated no doubt! Thanks RevoDS.
Yea, I'm steering clear of Nintendo, that has been my intention all along, as I believe Satoru Iwata will have some really tough months ahead.
I'll have a normal account, as I never loan money, so all I'll lose is what I invest, great.
I'll let my bank invest for my long-term investments, while I'll take control of my short-term investments, would this be a great idea?
I'm thinking of controlling my investments in Apple, NKT Holding, FLSmidth & Co. and Vestas Wind Sys. I gotta read and talk more with the bank about Electronic Arts and Novo Nordisk B.
Are there anything I should be aware of if I buy stock abroad? Because I'm located in Denmark and would like to invest in foreign companies like Apple, anything I should be aware of?
Yea, I'm steering clear of Nintendo, that has been my intention all along, as I believe Satoru Iwata will have some really tough months ahead.
I'll have a normal account, as I never loan money, so all I'll lose is what I invest, great.
I'll let my bank invest for my long-term investments, while I'll take control of my short-term investments, would this be a great idea?
I'm thinking of controlling my investments in Apple, NKT Holding, FLSmidth & Co. and Vestas Wind Sys. I gotta read and talk more with the bank about Electronic Arts and Novo Nordisk B.
Are there anything I should be aware of if I buy stock abroad? Because I'm located in Denmark and would like to invest in foreign companies like Apple, anything I should be aware of?
Large Professor
Member
Anastacio said:
Besides the obvious like the DKK/USD exchange rate it's something you should discuss with your bank/broker.
spiderman123
Member
Man, Ken Rogoff didn't make proper sense. I couldn't see where he was coming from. Krugman was consistent about maintaining fiscal policy and using inflation to erode the real debt burden
http://cnn.com/video/?/video/podcasts/fareedzakaria/site/2011/08/14/gps.podcast.08.14.cnn
http://cnn.com/video/?/video/podcasts/fareedzakaria/site/2011/08/14/gps.podcast.08.14.cnn
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
It's stupid that again people talk about "stimulus" without talking about the root cause issue, which is demand.
The only way to increase demand is to target areas that stifle demand. For demand to rise people need jobs and a rise in discretionary income, the later which can happen by reducing obligatory-expenditures. So it must be cheaper to travel, it must be cheaper to be housed, it must be cheaper to have food, it must be cheaper to be healed, etc. People moved to texas because the cost of living was cheaper, housing was cheaper, etc.
By improving what I mentioned you make it more affordable to live anywhere in the US, and easier to find a job either close or far from where you live. There is also a need for de-ubranisation. People who own property in a city don't contribute to the economy in the same way than people who own property outside the cities. The later are likely to make home improvements, buy a pool, have a garden, etc. Respectably-sized property ownership (a property with a small terrain, at least a backyard) is a source of strength for the US economy. There's a lot of land, so people need to move away from the cities. Cities are hot points that need to be cooled down, so that true property ownership can increase across the board.
Urbanization leads to economies of scale, which means less money spent. Why build your own garden when you can have a community garden? Etc. And all this does is allow property prices to rise because people can sacrifice a bigger portion of their income to their property, since they have less reasons to spend on other things of their own choosing. Property prices rise because the other option is to rent, which is a worst financial choice, or move away. It also reduces innovation because the system is built for the collectivity, which reduces incentives for the masses to be creative.
Technology and transit allows people to live away from the city yet have access to all the things they would have access to in said cities. Living away from the city leads to bigger and cheaper properties, and higher freedom to spend on what people feel like spending on. This is how demand can rise; when people are free to spend on what they want to spend on, and when they are creative and innovative.
This is how you create jobs. The US has had three years now to put this in effect and it hasn't.
That's the kind of spending that can help the US economy, not "stimulus". The stimulus implied is like a foot massage, when it should be the purchase of better shoes.
So on one hand you have those asking for the government to do nothing, which will lead to nothing, and on the other hand you have a demand for stimulus, which is really just monetary-supply-side-economics rather than what it should imply: improvement of worker mobility, reduction of obligatory financial burdens, de-urbanisation, increased property ownership, etc. to gain a rise in demand which will lead to a rise in production capacity, leading to inflation.
The only way to increase demand is to target areas that stifle demand. For demand to rise people need jobs and a rise in discretionary income, the later which can happen by reducing obligatory-expenditures. So it must be cheaper to travel, it must be cheaper to be housed, it must be cheaper to have food, it must be cheaper to be healed, etc. People moved to texas because the cost of living was cheaper, housing was cheaper, etc.
By improving what I mentioned you make it more affordable to live anywhere in the US, and easier to find a job either close or far from where you live. There is also a need for de-ubranisation. People who own property in a city don't contribute to the economy in the same way than people who own property outside the cities. The later are likely to make home improvements, buy a pool, have a garden, etc. Respectably-sized property ownership (a property with a small terrain, at least a backyard) is a source of strength for the US economy. There's a lot of land, so people need to move away from the cities. Cities are hot points that need to be cooled down, so that true property ownership can increase across the board.
Urbanization leads to economies of scale, which means less money spent. Why build your own garden when you can have a community garden? Etc. And all this does is allow property prices to rise because people can sacrifice a bigger portion of their income to their property, since they have less reasons to spend on other things of their own choosing. Property prices rise because the other option is to rent, which is a worst financial choice, or move away. It also reduces innovation because the system is built for the collectivity, which reduces incentives for the masses to be creative.
Technology and transit allows people to live away from the city yet have access to all the things they would have access to in said cities. Living away from the city leads to bigger and cheaper properties, and higher freedom to spend on what people feel like spending on. This is how demand can rise; when people are free to spend on what they want to spend on, and when they are creative and innovative.
This is how you create jobs. The US has had three years now to put this in effect and it hasn't.
That's the kind of spending that can help the US economy, not "stimulus". The stimulus implied is like a foot massage, when it should be the purchase of better shoes.
So on one hand you have those asking for the government to do nothing, which will lead to nothing, and on the other hand you have a demand for stimulus, which is really just monetary-supply-side-economics rather than what it should imply: improvement of worker mobility, reduction of obligatory financial burdens, de-urbanisation, increased property ownership, etc. to gain a rise in demand which will lead to a rise in production capacity, leading to inflation.
spiderman123
Member
Finance Question
When using a proxy to calculate a company's Beta, I am use the S&P 500 vs the historical price ( from year A to year B/ monthly) for Company X. However I am being told to use S&P 500, The 10 year US T-Bill and Company X.
Why use the 10 year T- Bill, because it is risk free?! I already have a proxy.
When using a proxy to calculate a company's Beta, I am use the S&P 500 vs the historical price ( from year A to year B/ monthly) for Company X. However I am being told to use S&P 500, The 10 year US T-Bill and Company X.
Why use the 10 year T- Bill, because it is risk free?! I already have a proxy.
Large Professor
Member
Warren Buffett calls for higher taxes for the super rich:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/stop-coddling-the-super-rich.html
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Krugman on point: Oh! What A Lovely War!
TheRagnCajun
Member
tiiiiiimber
Xisiqomelir
Member
More carnage, more profit!
Anyone else net short here or am I the only one relishing market bleed-outs?
Anyone else net short here or am I the only one relishing market bleed-outs?
Xisiqomelir
Member
ElyrionX said:
Puts, with a smidgen of vanilla short-selling.
Bought a whole bunch of stuff today on the cheap. Also, solid gains for gold I just bought earlier this week :lol
What's you guys' opinion of AAPL right now? Even though the stock has come down I am still hesitant to jump in because I don't see the iPhone 5 doing as well as its predeccesors, and due to Android recently putting out good quality devices.
What's you guys' opinion of AAPL right now? Even though the stock has come down I am still hesitant to jump in because I don't see the iPhone 5 doing as well as its predeccesors, and due to Android recently putting out good quality devices.