patrick.net

I think that they should just change their name to "Fox Comedy Channel." That would be a more honest name for what they do.

The android phones are made by : HTC, Samsung, LG, Motorola, etc. Buy their stocks if you think Android makes money for them.
You can compare the iPhone to EACH above company's share, not "android", since Android is not a product and it's free.
The fact that peanut butter is more popular does not necessarily hurt my sales of lobster either.
I have an Andriod phone myself, but the Apple ones are cooler, nicer and will be popular in my opinion.
Everything Apple makes and sells makes a fortune. When that stops, the price of their stock will stop climbing maybe.

A lot of stocks I've been following lately seem stuck in a rut.

Just unloaded my TSLA, which was my gamble of late. Good payoff.

You are more of a high-roller than me, good luck to you.

shrekgrinch says

As for destroying the economy, if you refuse to acknowledge that HISTORICAL FACT then I can’t have a logical conversation with you.

Gee, I seem to remember the economy being pretty rocky when Obama took office. Are you sure that the economy was humming along nicely when Obama took office. How about some charts of things like the unemployment rate, gdp, corporate profits, housing sales, mortgage defaults, etc, etc for the last decade and show us exactly the point after he took office where Obama destroyed the economy. Obama certainly hasn't improved things much, but he didn't wreck it in the first place either.

I guess your definition of history differs from everyone else.

I like the play....just not sure Apple is crashing anytime soon. May just kinda wade around for awhile and do nothing.

July puts gives you a little over 2 months though, and given the squawking we're seeing in commodities/China/Europe, etc., I can see a general market/Apple decline.

thunderlips11 says

Apple has nowhere to go but down, unless they pull another rabbit out of the bag, they are already running at maximum profit and flush with cash. If Jobs gets real sick or passes away it will drop 20% in a day.

You might be right, but their top and bottom lines improve every quarter. They're not done.

Jobs is a wildcard, in the short term for the market value and in the longer term for the business.

thunderlips11 says

If you want to go long Apple, you can buy Samsung or Corning. They make the chip that powers the iPhone and iPad, and the screen for the iPhone, respectively. Problem is, if there is a problem in the supply chain and Samsung has to decide who gets their chips first - their own Android Phones or Apple’s iPhone, guess which one they are going to pick?

For what it's worth, Samsung is just a fab for the CPUs. Apple can and will source the chips (which they designed themselves on an ARM core) elsewhere. It might be a supply chain blip, but that happens to everyone.

I sold my house in a short sale recently. The first and second mortgages were held by Chase. It took 6 months from time of offer to closing and much negotiating (according to my agent). During this period two other people wanted to make offers (and we could have got higher than the final closing price). I wanted to take these offers but the agent discouraged me from doing so. His reason was that it would complicate things too much to introduce other offers when one is already in the works. It turns out, it's because the person who put in the first offer - the only one the agent was willing to negotiate - is a buddy of his. I discovered this after closing.

You morons do realize you are Fox news sole viewers, right? Right?
Nobody watches Fox, that being said, people weren't particularly happy when Jimmy Carter invited the Charlie Daniels band, to the White house either. Democrats just have a history of getting elected and doing uncouth shit. What do you want from FOX, a channel that only angry Democrats watch.

Again, we see the same arguments on a different thread for the same reason. The conservatives just can't seem to understand the difference between "fact" and "belief." Whenever they use history they inject a giant amount of belief to dilute any facts that were cited. It's nice to read fantasy online. It's entertaining at least.

The revisionist history is especially entertaining when it comes to judging the presidency of Jimmy Carter. He didn't destroy the economy or make us look weak on the foreign stage. But then again, if you conservatives ever admit that, you have to acknowledge that the oil crisis in 1979 had its roots in Nixon's time. And you'd have to acknowledge that the oil crisis, having been caused by actions and policies started in Nixon's time, destroyed the economy, not Jimmy Carter.

Also, then if you don't blame Jimmy Carter for the mess that was created by Nixon you won't get to have your villian to prop up the worst president in history... Ronald Reagan.

By the way, Jimmy Carter arranged for the hostages in Iran to be set free. Ronald Reagan got to announce it and take credit for it. I was there. I remember.

Ronald Reagan did nothing but set the stage for his descendants to destroy the economy and steal all the money from the middle classes.

But, again, you'd have to know the difference between "fact" and "belief" to understand all of it.

Here are some other facts: Unemployment at 4.7% as of January 2001. Unemployment at 8.5% as of January 2009. Those dates are significant because the first date is when GWB took office and the second date was when GWB left office.

By the way, what's an "incombent?"

simchaland says

having been caused by actions and policies started in Nixon’s time, destroyed the economy, not Jimmy Carter.

The economy wasn't that bad during the late 1970s.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=sR

The blue line shows employment growing from 76M to 92M from 1975 to 1980.

All this new employment was inflationary as the baby boom started bumrushing the workforce and establishing households. Peak boom year was 1957 so in 1975 the demographic crest was just turning 18.

The red line is the fed funds rate, and you can see the Fed intentionally killing expansion by raising rates in 1970, 1974, and 1980.

The way I understand it is that there is room for everyone at the top! Smartphones are not saturated yet, so they are ALL essentially taking away business from traditional cell phones, which still make up a huge % of the market.

Essentially, each smart phone manufacturer, OS provider, chipmaker, etc, is trying to grow the fastest in that space. Nokia and other manufacturers may lose, but to whom?

In that respect, no other competitor has what Apple has. RIMM is petering out, which actually just gives more room for Apple to dominate. So, that leave GOOG, which really doesn't make money on it per se.

Apple may drop, but I suspect it'll be back up the closer we get to iPhone 5, iPad 3, Christmas, back-to-school, tax refund time, and Festivus.

And what if they go on a smart buying spree? Acquire Adobe? Sprint? Make a real TV?

common_sense says

I wanted to take these offers but the agent discouraged me from doing so. His reason was that it would complicate things too much to introduce other offers when one is already in the works. It turns out, it’s because the person who put in the first offer - the only one the agent was willing to negotiate - is a buddy of his. I discovered this after closing.

Wish you could take legal action against that, that's horrible.

I haven't had television service since 2008. And I don't go to the movies or do Netflix, either.

Television is for morons. So is the internet, but I don't have a land line so I need it for Skype.

Does it help or hurt or just distract when I say that you all are fantastic. Well-reasoned and insightful debate--I, for one, appreciate your time and effort on each of the forum categories.

Thanks! :)

ToT, geez, I must be totally mentally deficient. I don't even have cable. I don't watch MSNBC or Fox or CNN. I only catch glimpses of these channels when I visit friends and local family. I get most my news from reading BBC and NPR mainly. Occasionally I'll read the Drudge Report when I'm feeling like getting my blood boiling or I need a laugh. I do watch local news over the air for entertainment purposes only. Local news in the Bay Area is a joke.

My very conservative aunts, uncles, and cousins all watch Fox almost exclusively. So apparently it's only mentally deficient liberals with cable and my conservative family members who watch Fox. That's a very interesting demographic.

Banks should require the listing to publicly show the email address of the loss mitigator. That way backup offers can just bypass the listing agent.

"The entire 1970s was a write-off. It was a perfect example of how destructive keynesian policies are.."

So Nixon and Ford were Keynesians?

How much is your downside?

As a long term investor I don't day trade. Their cash flow is fantastic:
http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?FilingID=7872142-13623-18402&type=sect&dcn=0001193125-11-104388

With every gamble there is a risk and every gambler eventually loses. Where do you get the list of insider trades that you posted btw because in a publicly traded company sales by management staff have to be approved. They are very regulated.

HousingWatcher says

So Nixon and Ford were Keynesians?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_are_all_Keynesians_now

Thing is, the 1970s saw us leave our debt where we found it:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=sU

This graph is gross federal debt + household debt / GDP

Note it's flat over the 1970s (and declining over the 1950-1970 period)

Note how it goes up in 1980, down for Clinton's second term, and shoots the moon since then.

So, as usual, Shrek is full of shit, assuming you've quoted Shrek above.

Question: In a short sale, doesn't the lender make an agreement to forgive the shortfall?

If so, then it makes sense for them to foreclose for a bit less. After foreclosing, they'll get to sell all their recourse notes to the collection agencies!

CNN also just did an article that health insurance cost 19K a year.
Who want's to be on the hook for that?

Tenouncetrout says

Who want’s to be on the hook for that?

http://money.cnn.com/2011/05/11/news/economy/healthcare_costs_family/index.htm

For a family of 4, sounds about right.

As the article should have noted, that's in ADDITION to the $8000/yr we spend on Medicare/Medicaid, LOL.

Canada spent $4000 per capita back in 2007:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0934556.html

Sweden, Japan, France were around $3000.

That's for UNIVERSAL care. Public/Private.

Look, if you want to live without health care, feel free. Just die in a gutter or under some quack's knife.

Every other industrial power has solved the escalating cost problem already with single payer insurance, or the NHS in the UK's case.

ChrisLA says

We inflate and thats one murder we won’t get away with.

Something's gotta give here. We're running a $250B/yr trade deficit with China:

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html#2011

$600B/yr total:

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2011/05/trade-deficit-increased-to-482-billion.html

Unemployment is 9% and rising.

AFAICT, we can't afford a strong dollar any more. Currency war is really different from inflation. They're related, but can diverge as policy and effect.

The dollar lost a lot in the 1980s and we might have to do that again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaza_Accord

Just an observation - how did a post that was written yesterday, with 52 comments added since then get 5000+ views? Sure, this is a popular topic but still... was each comment edited ~100 times?

I assume you mean this one ?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-11-2011/tone-def-poetry-jam---lyrics-controversy

Good one. Thanks.

ptiemann says

I wonder if someone is getting in trouble because of the information posted here, after all, there are some real listings (real addresses, real agents’ identities) posted here.

How do you mean? Probing by outside parties (like the ones in parentheses)?

(edit) Aha...

My Shanghai friend also mentioned in her email to me just now that she saw the pictures of the multitudes in the Apple store in China. "Apple products are very popular in China. Many people love brand name stuff, they save up several months salary to buy one iPhone or iPad."
The world consumer is drooling and begging to hand over wads of cash to Apple. Apple can't even keep up with the demand forstuff that they make $300 per unit profit on.
Of course, we can predict that this behavior will suddenly stop for no reason except that it's "sell in May and go away." I don't believe it myself.
But, since the stock market is an auction, no one can predict how it will behave between now and July. That's why index funds beat most managed funds.

clambo says

Apple products are very popular in China. Many people love brand name stuff, they save up several months salary to buy one iPhone or iPad.”

In the 80s, Chinese save 2 to 3 years to buy a color TV.
Now, it only takes 2 to 3 months to buy an iPad. A major improvement !!!

Tatupu: I didn't say that the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) required 20% of loans to be to the poorest 20% in the bank's community. Clinton's 7/1/95 Regulations to the Act did that. The regulations were a means to put 'teeth' into the CRA and bypass Congress who would not have passed such socialist nonsense. Oh, and during '08 when the housing bubble burst, I found the regulations and read them. They were scary and disgusting, that our Democrats in the federal govt would attempt to engineer results in the lending business to force loans to poor people to buy houses. That was a sick and dangerous meddling into the private sector lending business. Talk about meddling, Obama/Pelosi/Reid tacked on the socialist nationalization of the Student Loan business, onto the Health-Care Bill. The federal govt now controls the student loan business.
Oh, and your 'facts' of the NYTimes do NOT refute my statement that tax rate reductions for poor and middle income people under Bush's tax bill in 2001 were much greater than the rate reductions for high-income earners. Highest-earners had rate reductions of about 10% (39% down to 35%) is a rate that's 10% smaller, whereas average paids had huge % rate reductions, many of 100% because they went down to zero.

sbourg says

Tatupu: I didn’t say that the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) required 20% of loans to be to the poorest 20% in the bank’s community. Clinton’s 7/1/95 Regulations to the Act did that. The regulations were a means to put ‘teeth’ into the CRA and bypass Congress who would not have passed such socialist nonsense.

Again. Complete bullshit. Please post a source if you have one

The listing price of $190,000. is a joke. This house is worth a bare minimum of $300,000. and probably much more if sold retail. Furthermore this house has been on MLS for 125 days and looks great from the outside.

This doesn't make sense if the house has been on for 125 days, it was obviously priced a little high and you are saying it should have been priced higher??? A home should sell in 90 days or less if priced accurately. If it sits longer than that it is most likely overpriced and you should make a price reduction. This is another problem with the market. I see homes sitting for over a year without a single price reduction, what is that????? It's called list and hope and pray that some fool comes along and pays more than the house is worth. Sometimes that happens but more often than not it doesn't. Not in this market.

People seem to think if their house sold in the time frame it was supposed to sell they could have gotten more, I call this greed. What happened is you got a good realtor who did his/her homework on the market and landed a bullseye on the pricepoint.

have always believed that many of these offers are bogus. The banks want you to bid against a phantom. Here is the deal, don’t bid against anyone. It is all going to crash again anyway before another securitization push is begun.

Couldn't agree more. There were three instances where I was told there was another offer and would I like to submit a bid against them. Once I refused I was told that what happened was the listing agent was told the other person was going to submit an offer and then last minute decided not to. Whaaaaat? This has happened on more than one occassion. When the buyers don't create the bidding war the banks try to drum one up artificially. They would get 3 offers all around the same price (what the property was worth) so the bank would throw them all back and ask for a higher round of offers. I think this is unethical especially when the distance between the banks number and all of the offers is 100k or more. Give me a break, talk about trying to steer the market. They should be taking a cue from the offers, your pricepoint is too high.

That inventory could have renters and I am not sure if it could still be occupied by the original owners.

A lot of the inventory I'm seeing, no renters, no owners - vacant. These properties have been vacant for 1+ year. I've looked at homes that have been vacant for close to 3 years and held off the market deliberately by the bank.

tatupu70 says

See if you can follow along with me. Right now 50% of people don’t pay income taxes, right? That’s a stat that your type love to bandy about. If you decreased wealth disparity, people at the bottom and middle would have more money. And these people spend a much higher % of their income so demand for most everything would increase. Increased demand would lead to increased production which = more jobs. More jobs = more people making $$ and more taxpayers. More taxpayers = higher tax revenue.
See how that works?? It has nothing to do with fairness or socialism or ideaology. It has everything to do with practicality. I’m for doing things that work.

This is purely theoretical. You assume that by taking away more from the top, it will somehow flow to the bottom via government transfer payments. And this, at a time when, even if spending were controlled, there is still a revenue issue affecting the debt. Your scenario above is no more reality than you may claim is the scenario of a supply-sider.

tatupu70 says

Right now 50% of people don’t pay income taxes, right?

And therefore, if true, by definition ANY reduction in income tax rates, regardless of how small, will significantly benefit the "wealthy" in dollar terms much more than they will those who don't pay taxes at all.

Troy says

Paralithodes says

. . . government through its good graces is simply allowing you to keep a portion of it.That is essentially what President Obama meant when he referred to “tax expenditures.”

Sorry, wrong. A good example of a “tax expenditure” is the mortgage interest deduction. Government could just cut checks for the tax benefit they’re giving to home debtors (like they did recently), but instead this policy was slipped into the tax code as a deduction.
Geddit?
“Nessuna soluzione . . . nessun problema!„

Side point: The mortgage interest deduction was not just slipped into the code. It was a remainder from repealed code that allowed deduction of interest expense in general (e.g., including credit card interest). Reagan allowed the mortgage interest deduction to stay and now it is unfortunately sacred ground for both sides.

That said, I know too many people in person (and in forums) who believe that a tax cut on income is essentially the government giving its money to the ambiguously defined "rich," "super rich," etc.

If Obama was specifically referring to tax deductions, credits, and the like, then yes, I am wrong about his meaning, I concede that point, and I agree (as you know, I fully agree with you on the MID). If he was referring to tax cuts in general as well, then I stand by my point.

Paralithodes says

This is purely theoretical. You assume that by taking away more from the top, it will somehow flow to the bottom via government transfer payments. And this, at a time when, even if spending were controlled, there is still a revenue issue affecting the debt. Your scenario above is no more reality than you may claim is the scenario of a supply-sider.

Well, yes and no. I think history is pretty convincing in that regard. Look at wealth disparities over the last 100 years. Then look at how progressive taxes were over the last 100 years.

If you argue that there are other factors in play--I won't disagree. But that doesn't mean you don't do something that does work...

Paralithodes says

That said, I know too many people in person (and in forums) who believe that a tax cut on income is essentially the government giving its money to the ambiguously defined “rich,” “super rich,” etc.

I'd argue that a tax cut on capital gains is the government giving money to the rich.