19 ms·

Thats a good idea. Portfolio of your own verified consumer sentiments. Quick check: iPhone 1 was $500 at launch. Apple shares were $5, apple stocks 41x'd since

Thats a good idea. Portfolio of your own verified consumer sentiments. Quick check: iPhone 1 was $500 at launch. Apple shares were $5, apple stocks 41x'd since. If you bought the same amount in shares you'd have $20k, not bad.

amelius 2y ago
Does not scale. If everybody followed this rule ...
- teruakohatu 2y ago
  Also, Apple shares also do not replace the functionality of a phone, so the true opportunity cost of buying a premium phone instead buying a cheaper phone and spending the remainder on shares. Nobody bought a iPhone because they thought it would appreciate in value.
  - samatman 2y ago
    It isn't nobody, as evidenced by the continued existence of new-in-box original iPhones, which sell at auction for nosebleed prices. The trick is to identify products which will be considered iconic, while they're still on the market. This is crystal-ball-gazing, and that kind of game isn't for everyone, but it only takes one smash hit to make a profit on the total investment. There are certainly people who do this as a hobby / side hustle.
- Retric 2y ago
  > If everybody You can absolutely guarantee everyone isn’t going to follow that rule so why bother considering it? Also, nothing says you need to keep investments forever, a rolling fund where after X months you sell the stocks and repurchase based on current spending habits could work just fine at scale.
- rch 2y ago
  Everybody is more than welcome to buy into my long positions.
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  If “everybody” continuously purchased the same stocks then those stocks would be precisely the ones you would want to buy The price of other stocks would plummet from low demand
  - lovethevoid 2y ago
    Stock price isn't based on demand, so no that wouldn't work the way you think it would. These same stocks would be overvalued, with no fundamentals backing them as everyone wouldn't be buying the products/services to create those fundamentals.
    - jncfhnb 2y ago
      Stock price is 100% based on demand and nothing else (well aside from new issuances or splits). Demand is ideally a function of fundamentals. The stock price being overvalued is irrelevant if “everyone” is buying it. This is a hyperbolic example but it plays out in the valuation of the sp500 when legions of folks just dump into an index fund.
- user90131313 2y ago
  what if they followed the Apple stock advice in movie Forrest gump? They would have millions already.
- posix_monad 2y ago
  Vast majority do not have the disposable income to invest in stocks.
fbdab103 2y ago
That seems like cherry picking winners knowing that Apple roughly ends up on top. If your stock basket resembles other home purchases, you are going to see more modest returns.
- vineyardmike 2y ago
  I happened to buy a blackberry instead of the original iPhone. I can confirm that this is cherry picking. My 2007 GE kitchen appliances for my new home funded with a WaMu mortgage may are similarly unimpressive as investments in 2024. (And cherrypicking history is easy!)
- OJFord 2y ago
  And even if you did it properly, you're basically guaranteed to be overweight on luxury 'consumer discretionary' sectors because you have the surplus cash to do this, making the 'consumer defensive' part an inherently modest portion of your budget and therefore portfolio. And your mortgage probably makes you wildly over/under (but not correct) weight on residential real estate according to whether you consider it a payment you need to reflect in your portfolio or a part of your portfolio and therefore it's mising a justifying expenditure. And you'd presumably have no exposure to industrial real estate, defense, anything b2b, ... But it's a fun idea and I'll admit to similar irrational thinking when I was annoyed by Amex charging (and refusing to refund) me and my wife separately while I was in the middle of trying to talk to them about merging them/closing one. (Which reminds me, must do that soon before it happens again..)
jayd16 2y ago
You'd probably have far more Nestle, Ford, Kellogg's, Nike and AT&T stock this way too. Apple is on the far far end of successes with this strategy.
- number6 2y ago
  And you would end up with an MSCI World Index - I recently invested in Intel rather than AMD or NVIDIA. In hindsight, NVIDIA would have been the better choice. I also have some money in Index Funds - half a year ago it composed mostly of Apple, Microsoft and Meta, now NVIDIA is on top of the composition. The lesson for me: I don't know enough of the industries to base any financial decision on it.
  - dboreham 2y ago
    You were following logic, so NVIDIA made no sense, since they're basically a meme stock now.
  - distances 2y ago
    This has been my long-time takeaway too. I see the opportunities as obvious only in hindsight, it does not appear to me to invest at the time. Then again, that has probably saved me from quite many bad investments too. 3D cards, web, smartphones, search, social media, CPU advances, chip manufacturing and shortages, blockchains, AI, the list is endless I suppose. Like most here, I've read about them all from the early demos all the way to the mass adoption. I'm very happy to invest in index funds and observe tech only from the tech point of view, without stressing about picking the winners.
  - throwaway2037 2y ago
    MSCI World Index is much worse for historical performance compared to S&P 500. I would guess that half the profits of companies in the S&P 500 are international. There is little need to directly own companies in developing economies, when you can own their safer counterparts from developed countries that do a lot of investing in developing economies. This is probably true in the US, Europe, and Japan.
dboreham 2y ago
I did this (bought Apple stock at iPhone launch). I did it for a non-standard reason -- I'd worked around the telephony space and found it amazing that Jobs had been able to persuade AT&T to a) not charge $100/mo for data service and b) not lock down the device. That was such an incredible feat that I felt they were going to sell large numbers, because the greed of the telcos had in my mind been the impediment to the success of older similar devices. It had nothing to do with all the normal Apple-fan stuff. Of course I subsequently sold when I felt Apple had jumped the shark (I think they were making iPods in multiple colors, something like that). Around 2012 probably.
randerson 2y ago
In that particular example, an unopened iPhone 1 sold at an auction last year for $190,000, a 380x return!

amelius 2y ago

Does not scale. If everybody followed this rule ...

teruakohatu 2y ago
Also, Apple shares also do not replace the functionality of a phone, so the true opportunity cost of buying a premium phone instead buying a cheaper phone and spending the remainder on shares. Nobody bought a iPhone because they thought it would appreciate in value.
- samatman 2y ago
  It isn't nobody, as evidenced by the continued existence of new-in-box original iPhones, which sell at auction for nosebleed prices. The trick is to identify products which will be considered iconic, while they're still on the market. This is crystal-ball-gazing, and that kind of game isn't for everyone, but it only takes one smash hit to make a profit on the total investment. There are certainly people who do this as a hobby / side hustle.
Retric 2y ago
> If everybody You can absolutely guarantee everyone isn’t going to follow that rule so why bother considering it? Also, nothing says you need to keep investments forever, a rolling fund where after X months you sell the stocks and repurchase based on current spending habits could work just fine at scale.
rch 2y ago
Everybody is more than welcome to buy into my long positions.
jncfhnb 2y ago
If “everybody” continuously purchased the same stocks then those stocks would be precisely the ones you would want to buy The price of other stocks would plummet from low demand
- lovethevoid 2y ago
  Stock price isn't based on demand, so no that wouldn't work the way you think it would. These same stocks would be overvalued, with no fundamentals backing them as everyone wouldn't be buying the products/services to create those fundamentals.
  - jncfhnb 2y ago
    Stock price is 100% based on demand and nothing else (well aside from new issuances or splits). Demand is ideally a function of fundamentals. The stock price being overvalued is irrelevant if “everyone” is buying it. This is a hyperbolic example but it plays out in the valuation of the sp500 when legions of folks just dump into an index fund.
user90131313 2y ago
what if they followed the Apple stock advice in movie Forrest gump? They would have millions already.
posix_monad 2y ago
Vast majority do not have the disposable income to invest in stocks.

fbdab103 2y ago

That seems like cherry picking winners knowing that Apple roughly ends up on top. If your stock basket resembles other home purchases, you are going to see more modest returns.

vineyardmike 2y ago
I happened to buy a blackberry instead of the original iPhone. I can confirm that this is cherry picking. My 2007 GE kitchen appliances for my new home funded with a WaMu mortgage may are similarly unimpressive as investments in 2024. (And cherrypicking history is easy!)
OJFord 2y ago
And even if you did it properly, you're basically guaranteed to be overweight on luxury 'consumer discretionary' sectors because you have the surplus cash to do this, making the 'consumer defensive' part an inherently modest portion of your budget and therefore portfolio. And your mortgage probably makes you wildly over/under (but not correct) weight on residential real estate according to whether you consider it a payment you need to reflect in your portfolio or a part of your portfolio and therefore it's mising a justifying expenditure. And you'd presumably have no exposure to industrial real estate, defense, anything b2b, ... But it's a fun idea and I'll admit to similar irrational thinking when I was annoyed by Amex charging (and refusing to refund) me and my wife separately while I was in the middle of trying to talk to them about merging them/closing one. (Which reminds me, must do that soon before it happens again..)

jayd16 2y ago

You'd probably have far more Nestle, Ford, Kellogg's, Nike and AT&T stock this way too. Apple is on the far far end of successes with this strategy.

number6 2y ago
And you would end up with an MSCI World Index - I recently invested in Intel rather than AMD or NVIDIA. In hindsight, NVIDIA would have been the better choice. I also have some money in Index Funds - half a year ago it composed mostly of Apple, Microsoft and Meta, now NVIDIA is on top of the composition. The lesson for me: I don't know enough of the industries to base any financial decision on it.
- dboreham 2y ago
  You were following logic, so NVIDIA made no sense, since they're basically a meme stock now.
- distances 2y ago
  This has been my long-time takeaway too. I see the opportunities as obvious only in hindsight, it does not appear to me to invest at the time. Then again, that has probably saved me from quite many bad investments too. 3D cards, web, smartphones, search, social media, CPU advances, chip manufacturing and shortages, blockchains, AI, the list is endless I suppose. Like most here, I've read about them all from the early demos all the way to the mass adoption. I'm very happy to invest in index funds and observe tech only from the tech point of view, without stressing about picking the winners.
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  MSCI World Index is much worse for historical performance compared to S&P 500. I would guess that half the profits of companies in the S&P 500 are international. There is little need to directly own companies in developing economies, when you can own their safer counterparts from developed countries that do a lot of investing in developing economies. This is probably true in the US, Europe, and Japan.

dboreham 2y ago

I did this (bought Apple stock at iPhone launch). I did it for a non-standard reason -- I'd worked around the telephony space and found it amazing that Jobs had been able to persuade AT&T to a) not charge $100/mo for data service and b) not lock down the device. That was such an incredible feat that I felt they were going to sell large numbers, because the greed of the telcos had in my mind been the impediment to the success of older similar devices. It had nothing to do with all the normal Apple-fan stuff. Of course I subsequently sold when I felt Apple had jumped the shark (I think they were making iPods in multiple colors, something like that). Around 2012 probably.

randerson 2y ago

In that particular example, an unopened iPhone 1 sold at an auction last year for $190,000, a 380x return!