>surged another three per cent after the stock market close
Go on then, someone help me with my economic ignorance... If the market's closed for the day how/who is trading?
Brushing aside concerns about its 10nm production problems and its ability to meet market demand, Intel reported surprisingly high Q3 2018 financial figures on Thursday, lifting its stock in after-hours trading. For the three months to September 29, Chipzilla reported record quarterly revenue of $19.2bn, an increase of 19 per …
Haven't traded myself for a few years now, but aftermarket trading was a sort of wild-west thing - not many players, low liquidity, which can lead to "interesting" price moves that aren't later confirmed in the normal markets. That can work for you or against you as a trader if you know that and get kind of a feel for it.
Or used to.
For example, sometimes there are no buyers for something - and a dumb seller puts out a "sell at market" order. If you had a "buy at 1/2 the normal price or below" order in - you'd get a steal, one you could probably sell at something like the normal price the next day...and other variations of that kind of thing on either side of a trade.
Nowadays, the HFTs (who never sleep) and a few savvy humans (who never seem to need sleep)...kinda wrapped that one up, leaving little for the average person to play with there.
Price moves after hours are generally not as meaningful as those that occur with real volume behind them - they can be a complete illusion that will lead one astray if one things the moves are going to hold or continue the next day. It's kind of a "selected from random data" thing - prices are mostly set by uninitiated out-of-the-know small traders - it can go either way as to what's going to happen next in the "real" markets.
So, it's a possible indicator but that's all - the wind may change direction at any time...
It's not as simple as that.
Look at Apple's margins on some volume products. They do have functional competition.
Also the Communications Regulators (Ofcom, Comreg, FCC) don't understand competition. They think it will reduce prices and improve services. It doesn't due to monopolies of coax or local loop of previous incumbents. Mobile is degraded due to splitting the spectrum and not having a single wholesale operator.
Once a particular vendor has more than a certain share or reputation (Intel has both on desktop & server. Apple has "reputation", but not share), then competition doesn't help the consumer much. Prices are never based on cost but on either what the market will bear (Apple) or below cost if the aim is to create a monopoly (Sky in UK 20 years ago, Netflix now) or steal market share (Three mobile below cost for Data).
"Look at Apple's margins on some volume products. They do have functional competition."
That's a bit of a get out. I am not being sarcastic, but Apple don't have functional competition for their messaging system, and you can't, as you can with, say, a Mercedes and a BMW, jump out of an iPhone and into an Android phone and need a couple of minutes to familiarise. They only have competition, really, for new business - and that is relatively slow growing in their end of the market.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020