Those of you who know me well will know that I usually avoid a discussion of any sort of politics with friends or colleagues, primarily because in the US, friendships can be destroyed if people support opposite team members. I find that in the UK, people tend to be more tolerant of people's beliefs and religions in general, however, if you have read my posts from last year, then you have probably extrapolated that I support Hillary Clinton and PM David Cameron.
I typically dislike politics overall because U.S. politics often fall into predictable, dull rhetoric or melodrama with generalised sweeping statements focused on one-issue voters and reality TV discourse whereas in the UK, politicians tend to be much more clear and direct about their actions and plan of strategy. Thus far, PM David Cameron has stated at Davos last week that there will most likely not be a Brexit, although the UK will be firm about EU reform with immigration favouring highly skilled workers with university degrees and not towards Europeans who come to the UK simply to collect unemployment benefits.
However, to veer back on topic, I thought it would be interesting to compare movements in the stock market with U.S. Presidencies.
The stock market currently is nowhere near a stock market crash as in the previous 2001 and 2008 eras.
As you can see, typically, there is a reason why general investors and Wall St tend to be on edge every time there is a change in Presidency. 2001 was marked by the dotcom bubble and also 9/11, and 2008 marked the stock market crash. The U.S. is about to change Presidents again, and psychologically, this has made many VCs and investors nervous about the outcome, most likely because in their subconscious memories, this changing of the guard was always marked by a bear market.
However, if we examine the Stock Market Presidency Chart, the current Obama era is more similar to the previous Bill Clinton era in which there was strong economic growth. Both George Bush I and George Bush II had eras of extreme "military intervention" (aka attacking other nations) dominated by an overdependence on fossil fuels. The Iraq War caused a tenuous climb back to the 100% fibonacci retracement line marked by uncertainty, until the support gave away and we had endured several quarters in a row of a bear market.
The stock market currently is nowhere near a stock market crash as in the previous years of 2001 and 2008. In 2001, economic recovery after the dot com bubble had been further derailed by the events of 9/11, which catapulted the stock market into a bear market. If we compare the quarterly movements of Presidencies from George Bush I to the current POTUS, what we had experienced this past Dec is nowhere near the significant "violent" movements of previous eras and would be a great exaggeration to even call it a "stock market crash". The more accurate term for the Dec movement is a "correction." Certainly stock market sentiment is a little uncertain right now, as the waves have been rocky, but if we examine the current end of the week formation for SPY, a hammer with an extremely long tail formed that held the 187 horizontal support and 184 trend support in the weekly chart.
Hammer formation at the end of last week with a small head, strongly holding the 187 support line and potentially signaling the beginning of consolidation in the SPY weekly chart.
Although the opening and closing price of the movement was less than 1 dollar (ideally a 2-3 dollar difference is a stronger signal of a bull market) which created a tiny pinhead on top of the hammer formation, this could potentially signal the beginning of a consolidation period between 184-191 in the next several weeks. We initially had a shorter consolidation in November, but the consolidation period wasn't long enough to sustain an upward movement, and due to the fact that SPY tested the 161.8% fibonacci retracement line several times and was hovering in that area, it was due for a correction towards the trend support line.
In my extrapolation, the smaller the consolidation area, and the longer it is (6-8weeks) indicates a much better signal of a steady bull market. Currently the stock market is holding at the support, and has had a similar correction as the S&P downgrade in 2011.
The buy period will potentially begin in the 187-195 region as it nears the end of the consolidation period at the 184-191 area possibly 8 weeks from now in mid-March, and ideally this formation is what we should be looking for:
An 8-9 week consolidation pattern formed after the 2011 S&P downgrade that marked a steady bull market in the weekly chart for SPY.
Worst case scenario: If in March 2016, the US endures another 9/11 attack or a natural disaster that wipes out the entire west coast of California where Silicon Valley is located, then most likely we will have another stock market crash similar to 2001. In addition, in March 2016, if suddenly a significant portion of unicorn companies declare bankruptcy to become unicorpses, then we might have a 35-40% correction that might be indicative of a bear market into 2017-2018. If in March 2016, President Obama decides to declare war on Iran, then we might face another stock market crash as in 2008. (However, since the Iran Arms deal was approved last week, going to war would seem highly unlikely at this point.)
A scene from the Hollywood movie 2012, which shows geological disaster occurring on the west coast of California.
Most probable scenario: There will be some dips and waves, and in the next several weeks will be marked by choppy waters, but there will probably be no significant event that will occur in March that will send the stock market into a crash and most likely Iran will become a new market for the US and the UK to do business with in a steady continuation of the Hillary Clinton era bull market.
In addition, I recently saw a Bloomberg video in which the CEO of Morgan Stanley was interviewed at Davos, and I was a little surprised when he said that he didn't think oil would go below $50. I suppose he might've missed the memo from 2012 when the OPEC nations decided to phase out oil in favour of solar energy and when the Saudi Arabia PM made the announcement that Saudi Arabia will be the solar energy producer of the world. This dip in oil has been 4 years in the making. But then again, I'm fairly certain bankers don't have a tendency to rely on fundamentals nor macroanalysis and instead, have a preference to rely heavily on algos and stochastic charts and oscillators, which IMHO often do not have enough information to base a direction of the movement in the stock market.
So, in summary, we are nowhere near a stock market crash, oil is going to dip further as OPEC nations have already made a transition into solar energy, and called for the end of oil age; China's growth isn't slowing down as much as they are in a state of transition towards the 4th Industrial Revolution, and will potentially become the largest economy in the world and America will finally elect its first female President. It's about time.
By Sierra Choi
(Disclaimer: This post is intended for educational purposes only and not intended as stock market advice or a commentary about the nature of American politics)
I read an inciteful, condescending and somewhat amusing article about Paul Graham recently that sparked an interesting debate about the nature of startups and economic inequality in Silicon Valley.
The essay is a reaction to Paul Graham's blog post, in which he differentiates between wealth creation vs. the zero-sum game, the latter which represents certain classes of people who steal from others to become richer (ie, "And if there are people getting rich by tricking consumers or lobbying the government for anti-competitive regulations or tax loopholes, then let's stop them.")
David Plouffe, former campaign manager for the Obama administration is now an active lobbyist for Uber and driverless cars on Capitol Hill, and responsible for President Obama's new proposed budget of $4 billion to spend on the next 10 years to help companies in research and development of driverless car technology.
He also equates the greater freedom of wealth creation as a direct correlation to economic inequality (ie, "Eliminating great variations in wealth would mean eliminating startups.") He uses the example of Mark Zuckerberg as an example of greater wealth creation. Paul Graham says that during the Reagan era, where there was less economic inequality, the Zucks wouldn't have been able to create wealth via Facebook, but instead he would probably had gone to work for Microsoft. However, Mr. Graham forgets that during the Gerald Ford and Reagan Eras, Bill Gates (the Zuckerberg predecessor) created wealth via Microsoft, and many others, such as Steve Jobs created wealth via Apple and on and on. In fact, there were many founders of startups and small businesses that became successful during the Gerald Ford and Reagan Eras when there was less economic inequality. So does that mean that economic inequality automatically translates into greater freedom of wealth creation as he postulates?
Bill Gates and Paul Allen founded Microsoft in 1975, when America had less economic inequality than today and during a time when public university education was free.
The author of the inciteful essay- Paul Graham is Still Asking to be Eaten, Holly Wood, which I assume is a nom de plume, questions why startups are the de facto ne plus ultra of wealth creation, and compares the importance of other fields and professions, such as nurses and teachers, and why their roles should be less important than that of founders of startups? But why stop there? What about basketball stars and pro baseball players? Why should certain professions create more wealth value than others that serve an instrinsic purpose to the population? Why are plumbers paid less than doctors? Why are teachers paid less than football stars? However, the writer specifically targets the founders of startups and questions the validity of some social networks such as Peeple- yet the writer never questions the validity of Facebook or Twitter.
Alex Rodriguez, baseball player for the New York Yankees is paid a salary of $21 million annually.
I think one of the missing links in Paul Graham's flawed argument is that startups oftentimes defied convention, and moved people towards more economic equality than being the product of economic inequality. Iconic founders moved away from the ideals of traditional education (although many could argue that the strongest proponents of the argument for dropping out of university were themselves products of the Ivy Leagues and Stanford). However, for many in the post-industrial era, education was the key towards economic wealth and social mobility. Startups began to question those methodologies, and with the skyrocketing costs of a traditional education, new startups began commodotising on short-term vocational training, such as Udacity, to train people to work in technology companies.
Udacity, an online vocational school that teaches students to work in technology companies as developers in driverless technology, iOS and Android applications and machine learning.
So I disagree that "eliminating great variations in wealth would mean eliminating startups". In fact, startups, in many ways, attempt to streamline economic inequality, to create a more balanced, economic distribution in which many different classes of people can take part. Certainly, as Holly Wood says, not everyone should have to aspire to be an startup founder, and perhaps the ideal created in the media of certain founders borders on cultish media methodologies, whereas the everyday heroes we take for granted- mothers, teachers, counselors, small business owners, farmers, forest rangers, artists, often do not achieve the kind of cult-like following in the media as do models, actors, sportstars, and startup founders.
Kim Kardashian West is the most followed person on Instagram with 58.2 million followers.
The truth is, startups arose from the conditions set by the post-industrial era, as factory work became replaced with software engineering, but in the industrial era, there existed many more small business owners who could've been categorised in a similar vein as startup founders. Startup founders, are in essence, small business owners. McDonald's was originally a small business founded by the McDonald's brothers in the 1950s, which became a recognisable American icon, as was Walmart. All corporations were at one time, a small business or a "startup", including Microsoft, which didn't make a profit until its 4th year in existence, and made around $100K in its first profitable year.It wasn't the conditions of economic inequality that paved the way for startups and small businesses, it was exactly the opposite, a more distributed system of economic wealth that allowed people to take chances to start small businesses.
The original startup founders, Richard and Maurice McDonald who founded McDonald's in 1955, when there existed less economic inequality than today.
However, in our present society, especially in the US, the growing trend is moving towards the extinction of small businesses. As economic inequality becomes more widespread, it is the big corporations that wipe out smaller startups, create clone companies or else, the small fish becomes acquired by the giants, therefore creating less competition. David O. Sacks wrote in a facebook blog a few years ago after his startup Yammer, got acquired by Microsoft for $1+ billion that:
What David O. Sacks postulates is that the heyday of Silicon Valley as a new frontier of startup founders from the 70s and 80s has been replaced by corporate giants and startups based around a network entirely composing of Stanford. Steve Jobs couldn't create Apple today under the conditions of this growing economic inequality and Sergey and Larry couldn't create another Google under the same conditions.
Let us not forget either that despite Y-Combinator's bluechip status, that approximately 80% of its wealth is based on exactly one startup- AirBnB, a startup that almost didn't get chosen into Y-Combinator. As Holly Wood writes, 99% of startups fail, and 99.5% of startups at Y-Combinator have failed; so perhaps instead of simply admiring the wealth creation of one startup- we should analyse why 99.5% have failed at wealth creation? Perhaps centering the startup world around the myopic, incestuous world of Stanford isn't such a great idea after all.
In history, it is usually the middle classes that produce iconic artists. It is also the middle class today that launch the most amount of small businesses. In areas where there are less pockets of economic inequality, there are more small businesses. Venture capitalists are the "benefactors" of today's society, and certainly they are the ones who fund the founders of our era, but it isn't the 1% that is creating the startups nor people in poverty who create them; instead the majority of wealth generation comes from people who have solidly grown up in middle class neighbourhoods where there was less economic inequality.
Paul Graham also makes a remark upon poverty and how that topic should hold precedence over the topic of economic inquality, the latter which he views as a natural occuring phenomenon. However, Mr. Graham had an opportunity to do just that- make a difference in poverty via one of his Y-combinator startups, Homejoy, in which a significant portion of the cleaners were found to be homeless people. Here, Mr. Graham could've made a difference in combating poverty, and given these homeless people an opportunity for education and advancement, but instead, what happened was that they were exploited as cheap labour, and forced into the status of independent contractors.
Homeless shelters in America, a disturbingly growing trend.
In the end, Paul Graham and Holly Wood both make two sides of the same argument in their essays: economic inequality is increasing and it is due to financial deregulation. However, I argue that it is up to startups to distribute that income divide, rather than proliferation of economic inequality. As Jack Ma said, the main motive of Alibaba was to empower small business owners and to create an infrastructure to help them through tough times. This is something that is solely lacking in the United States due to the rate of increasing economic inequality. According to gallup 50% of new businesses fail within the first five years and statistic brain research institute reports that 71% of all startups fail by the 10th year.
Perhaps instead of arguing the myriad injustices in the world and pointing the finger of blame towards financial institutions, we should attempt to create viable solutions to this dismal failure rate of small businesses, and think of ways to create more economic equality to support them than make an argument for why startup founders are more revered than nurses.
By Sierra Choi
It's Friday and I have a lot of watching movies to do over the weekend, as there were quite a bit leftover that I hadn't had time to watch over the winter holiday. I received most of my Producers Guild screeners, and I've only gotten through half of the films thus far before I have to vote on them at the end of next week before the Awards Shows.
However, there is one film that I really liked that I saw over the holiday and that was The Experimenter.
Peter Sarsgaard and Winona Ryder portray Stanley and Alexandra Milgram in the film The Experimenter.
The Experimenter is a film about the social scientist and psychologist, Stanley Milgram who conducted interesting experiments into the nature of obedience and authority. The film also touches upon the experiments of Solomon Asche, who conducted the conformity experiments.
The conformity experiments, which were published as "The effect of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgements" is a fascinating look at the social psychology and the effect of group mentality.
In summary: Professor Solomon Asche took 6 subjects (with one only being the true test subject, while the others were inserted into the room) and asked to relay the correct answer to a set of visual questions (eg, which is the longest line?) and the subjects gave their answer in serial succession, with the true test subject put into 5th position.
Asche's Conformity experiment. The true test subject is the 5th guy in the white t-shirt. Members are asked to give the right answer to a series of questions such as which is the highest line? etc until the lead subject starts to give wrong answers and the rest of the people follow, including the true test subject, who answers incorrectly to his better judgement.
At first, the subjects gave the right answer, Then the subjects answered incorrectly, with the group mirroring the incorrect answer, and the true test subject, despite his better judgement also answered incorrectly. Solomon Asche's publishings revealed that individuals were more likely to go with the judgement of group mentality even if his own judgement said otherwise. Of course, nowadays we sometimes poke fun of others abiding by "sheep mentality" or "groupthink" as Orwell aptly put it in 1984, however oftentimes, we might not be aware of that groupthink also exists in the news media. Orwell was one of the original thinkers who put forth the idea that if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes truth.
VIX measures volatility in the market indices, and moves to the erratic, disharmonious tunes of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring.
For example, if we take a current look at the media, for many years now, all the news media, from Bloomberg, to CNBC, to the BBC and even smaller news magazines, such as The Street et al, have been talking about another stock market crash since 2009. In fact, I have seen rather overt articles based on little information aside from parallel stochastics levels and over-reliance on algos that are the basis of the doomsday predictions that we are all in for another 2008 or 2000. There was even one financial analyst/ journalist I read this morning who wrote that we are in for a stock market crash because the market has made a correction of 10%, and that the only other times that had happened was in 2000 and 2008. I can say that the latter is most definitely not true. In fact, the US stock market made a 10% correction in 2010 and also in 2011, when in the latter case, the US had been downgraded by the S&P and lost its AAA credit rating. In both cases, 2010 and 2011, the market recovered just fine after reaching the expected correction levels.
SPY, an ETF that measures the SP-500, moves in a similar rhythm to Berlioz's Symphony Fantastique, 5th movement, with a seemingly ominous series of strong recurring motifs that ultimately prevail into glory.
The overwhelming evidence is actually quite contradictory that we are in for a stock market crash, but rather, that we will potentially reach newer highs into 2017-2019.
So I will end the week on this note: Trust your own judgement. I also wanted to mention that I thought my PGA colleagues, executive producers James A. Fino and Joe Russo did an amazing job with the CGI stop animation for Anomalisa. Anomalisa is an intricate examination of loneliness centered around a self-help guru and author, but probably could also be about the study of the Private Lives and Confessions of Certain Politicians.
By Sierra Choi
(Disclaimer: This post is for educational purposes only and not intended as stock market advice)
Some of you may know that I've always been fascinated by the Ancient Greeks, known to recite poems by Martial on occasion (eg, nec possum dicere quare) read Seneca as a self-motivation tool, and primarily abide by the ethics of epicurianism as opposed to stoicism and even delayed my graduation for my B.A. degree by 4 months because I decided to take Latin and Philosophy courses instead of taking the required classes needed to finish my degree on time. In essence, I believe it is better to enjoy life.
One of my innate, unending fascinations has always been the golden ratio. The golden ratio is based on the fibonacci sequence founded by the Italian mathematician Leonardo Bonacci Fibonacci in 1202 and can be written as Fn = F(n-1) + F(n-2)... or also as 1.61803398875... However, what it looks like is this:
Hence why it's also referred to as the golden ratio. We are surrounded by examples of the golden ratio in art and architecture, and it gives an insight into human perception. There are also many examples in nature of the golden ratio or the fibonacci sequence, such as
and the solar system.
The Ancient Greeks were the first to create a parallel processing analogue computer called the Antikythera Mechanism that predicted planetary and solar movements that were exact to the day, week and year. This device had been discovered in 1900 buried under the sea, and if the device hadn't been on board when the ship sank off the Antikythera island in Greece several hundreds of thousands of years ago, the device wouldn't have been preserved for us to study in the early 20th century. What the Antikythera Mechanism showed was that the Ancient Greeks had already developed technology that was beyond the technological advances of its turn of the century 1900s successors to the shock of many people during the time.
The Antikythera Mechanism measures the movement of the galaxy partly via the fibonacci sequence.
Similarly, the fibonacci sequence can be calcuated for visual and auditory information, such as an image or a piece of musical composition. Leonardo Fibonacci originally utilised the fibonacci sequence in his book Liber Abaci to accurately predict the growth rate of rabbits. I also like to utilise the fibonacci retracement percentages for movements in the global stock markets.
Hong Kong's Hang Seng Index moves to the rhythm of Beethoven's Symphonies with many recurring leitmotifs.
Typically, I've noticed that major volatility in the markets occur before the announcement of the news, therefore suggesting that major players already know the impending outcome of such movement. Two key events in 2015 that have affected the volatility of the global stock markets have been China's adjustment and devaluation of its currency in August and the US's retaliation by the Federal Reserve by raising interest rates in December. However, what is interesting is that in the Asian-Pacific markets, the Japanese Nikkei has not been significantly affected by the interest rate hikes despite being no.1 in the holder of US debt, next to China.
Japan's Nikkei has a similar pattern to a Wagnerian opera with ABA formations
This could potentially show that Japan is a growing powerhouse, and moving into the no.1 position of superpower nation whose descent had only been halted by the geological attacks of both the tsunami and earthquake in March of 2011 that had temporarily suspended all its manufacturing and industrial activities. Thus far, Japan has been 15 years ahead in nanotech and AI from the rest of the world and is the number one producer of biofuels, green energy and humanoid androids, the latter which have already infilitrated their commercial markets- from android teachers to android hotel receptionists and maids to android family companions, Japan has dominated every aspect of AI, and just recently SoftBank made the announcement to partner with the flailing IBM to help the US commercialise its less-than-stellar Watson supercomputer into the US market after Japanese scientists and engineers had invested time to make adjustments to Watson last February.
Students at Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) take 1st place in DARPA's robotic challenge in June 2015, far outrunning Google X's Boston Dynamics.
In comparison, the South Korean market is heavily dependent on the US, and mirrors the US stock market, and in turn the US is dependent on South Korean technology, especially in nanotech and AI to help the US in global competition. Such corporations as Samsung, work with the US Govt on its defense projects, and many South Korean universities, such as Korean Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) work with DARPA, and KAIST's scientists, along with University of British Columbia were the original builders of the D-Wave quantum computer that Lockheed Martin had funded which Google now holds vested interest in. In addition, the Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology (GIST) has an active exchange programme with Caltech and work together on many projects. I think a recurring pattern in South Korean technology companies is that the technology is often usurped by US agencies, which in turn, become absorbed into US-based startups and organisations.
US B-52 flying over South Korea this week, in an exaggerated display of ownership over the nation.
The two Koreas- South and North, resemble the previous divisions between East and West in Germany and the current one that still exists in the two Irelands. Korea, despite being a proud race of people, has always been a nation dominated by other superpowers, from China to Japan to the US, and since its division, has worked exclusively with the US in all forms of trade and technology, but will 2016 be the beginning of the cut of the umbilical cord to have the country come into its own? In my experience, speaking with South Korean residents, I have the impression that they would like to be reunited with North Korea, however, because North Korea has become such a comedic bargaining tool for the ever-lasting presence of the US military to remain vigilant over the country, it is unlikely that reunification will happen anytime soon, especially since the US is heavily invested in South Korean technology.
The Shanghai Composite Index moves in an analogous pattern to the composition of John Coltrane's Naima, with long solos and relative periods of mellow dissonance.
China is an interesting nation, and has its own sort of rhythm. For the first time in history since before the Cold War, China and Taiwan have closed its doors to active trading of technology information with the US and now they actively limit and monitor the amount of IP that they share with the US. This action, although not aggressive, however, is making a passive-aggressive stand that they are now potentially capable of possessing more advanced technology than the US. Certainly,they were the first to commercialise their holographic monitors and phones via Takee-Estar (although many global corporations had been in a race to develop the holographic technology) and although China is not as advanced as Japan in AI, could potentially be working on their own stealth version of nanofactories.
It's official: the UK and US are no longer in an exclusive relationship
In 2015, the UK also announced that they are no longer in an exclusive relationship with the US, and will now also be courting China. Chancellor George Osbourne announced plans to link the Chinese stock market directly with the London stock market in a strategy of internationalisation of the Chinese currency. Of course, China's devaluation of its currency around the same time, didn't bode well with the US, however this new love affair between China and the UK could be one that leads to long time financial gain, however, in the short term, the Fed's whose sudden decision, akin to a jealous lover, to hike up interest rates has created some volatility in the global markets.
EDIT: The Chinese Central Bank made a move to strengthen the yuan (RMB) as I was writing this post on Monday, thus appeasing to US pressure and reiterating bullish sentiments into 2017.
KEY PROJECTIONS: US, Japan, Hong Kong's stock markets to move towards new highs into 2017, whilst London's stock exchange to consolidate until a breakout in late 2019-early 2020 with Shanghai's stock exchange to consolidate until a breakout in mid-late 2020.
(Disclaimer: This post was intended for educational purposes only and should not be considered as stock market advice.)
By Sierra Choi
The doom-and-gloom projections of the news media are starting again, so I thought this would be an opportune time to update my previous stock market projections.
I am still bullish on the stock market. Sure, words and phrases have been thrown about 6.59% drop in the NASDAQ this week, reaching 5000, Equities tumble, Will the stock market make you lose your job or other such headlines in the news. But, let's face it, no one buys the top, everyone buys the bottom for maximum ROI, and we are at that point near bottom.
Thus far, the SPY has been following a parallel pattern to 2011, and this week, is nearing the end formation of a half arc, in potentially, a final correction before resuming the uptrend.
To be honest, I extrapolated that the half arc would be finished two weeks ago, but because of the shorter consolidation period before the formation of the very strong bullish indicator in October, there had been more perplexing consolidation in the formation of the half arc. Good news though, it's nearly finished. This is where we can all potentially breathe and think, where could the potential entry point be for this ensuing uptrend if it holds the support level? My projection for SPY will be that it will reach 242.04 by November 2017.
Also the EURUSD has been consolidating in a snake-like pattern, and it looks to be on the verge of a potential breakout. Oftentimes, the EURUSD has been compared an analogous precursor to the movement of the S&P, although not exact. I like to look at the EURUSD for comparison, not necessarily a prognosticator of the SPY to verify a strong movement either way. However, currently it doesn't seem likely that the EURUSD will be plummeting anytime soon. In fact, the EURUSD seems to be nearing the end of its own consolidation pattern.
Another favourite stock of mine is Apple (AAPL). Why not, I grew up idolising Steve Jobs, and the companies he have built have been tremendously inspirational to many people around the world. I still recall during his death when everyone put flowers and cards outside every Apple store location in the world.
Steve Jobs didn't form a Gates Foundation non-profit to inject his influence in the African and pharmaceutical and biomedical sectors, but he had been a vegan for most of his life who hated traditional medicine, drank green juices and made inspirational speeches about following one's inner instincts. How can one not admire a man who had found his biological sister simply because he was drawn to reading her novels, without realising that she had been his sister all along, even if he did have a bit of temper? Perhaps in our current generation, the only person who comes close to Steve Jobs is the original ousted founder of Etsy, Rob Kalin.
But in regards to Apple, the company, no, it isn't going anywhere. Apple has long-term vision and has self-sufficient been for a long time, thanks to the trio that had been Steve Jobs, Tim Cook, and Jonny Ive. My Apple projections for the New Year is that it will reach 157.47-171.17 by August 2019, and that is a conservative estimate. Apple is currently at 96.45.
Chipotle has finished phase 1 of its European expansion and now entering the second phase. This is good news because now everyone is dumping their Chipotle stocks. Chipotle is currently at its support level. I surmise in the next couple of weeks, we will see it if it will begin consolidation at this level or slightly below.
Mind you, I'm not a US stock broker, so this post is for education purposes only and not intended as stock advice. However, I think instead of reading the news, and looking at numbers all day long without context, that sometimes, it's good to simply look at the long-term picture. A lot of times, I found that certain patterns emerge before it even makes the news and visual analysis + macro analysis is better at discerning that big picture than looking at serial numbers that don't really convey much information aside from % points day in year out.
2016? It's going to be a great year for stocks. Unless of course, Uber declares bankruptcy. Then we are in deep trouble because Uber's valuation is currently higher than 80% of the S&P. So here's a shout out to Uber: Don't F*ck Up!
By Sierra Choi
(Disclaimer: This post is intended for educational purposes only and not intended as stock advice)