Apple (AAPL) Offering Possible 36.61% Return Over the Next 22 Calendar Days

Apple's most recent trend suggests a bullish bias. One trading opportunity on Apple is a Bull Put Spread using a strike $280.00 short put and a strike $275.00 long put offers a potential 36.61% return on risk over the next 22 calendar days. Maximum profit would be generated if the Bull Put Spread were to expire worthless, which would occur if the stock were above $280.00 by expiration. The full premium credit of $1.34 would be kept by the premium seller. The risk of $3.66 would be incurred if the stock dropped below the $275.00 long put strike price.

The 5-day moving average is moving up which suggests that the short-term momentum for Apple is bullish and the probability of a rise in share price is higher if the stock starts trending.

The 20-day moving average is moving up which suggests that the medium-term momentum for Apple is bullish.

The RSI indicator is above 80 which suggests that the stock is in overbought territory.

To learn how to execute such a strategy while accounting for risk and reward in the context of smart portfolio management, and see how to trade live with a successful professional trader, view more here

---

LATEST NEWS for Apple

Apple Seen As Likely Buyer Of Broadcom Wireless Chip Businesses
Tue, 24 Dec 2019 18:17:07 +0000
Investment bank JPMorgan believes iPhone maker Apple is the most likely buyer of Broadcom's wireless chip businesses. Broadcom stock rose on Tuesday. Apple stock hit a record high.

What Happens When the Internet Gets Less American?
Tue, 24 Dec 2019 17:43:55 +0000
(Bloomberg Opinion) — America is going to have to reckon with an internet that is becoming less American.Some U.S. lawmakers on both sides of the partisan divide have said they are worried about TikTok, the app that lets users record and share short skits or dance routines to music. The app quickly became popular in the U.S. and some other countries, and that has generated anxiety about TikTok’s ownership by the Chinese internet company ByteDance Inc.The U.S. is conducting a national security review of TikTok, and a foreign investment committee is considering whether ByteDance should be forced to unwind an acquisition that brought the TikTok app to the U.S. The U.S. Navy this week alerted personnel not to use TikTok on government-issued smartphones because of a cybersecurity threat that the Navy didn’t detail.TikTok has been on a mission to alleviate worries about its Chinese ownership by ramping up its outreach to U.S. politicians. It has also taken steps and considered structural changes to create separation between the app and China. Some of these efforts seem like pointless window dressing.I don’t know whether TikTok is a genuine threat. I don’t know whether it is harvesting Americans’ data for the mother country. There have been news reports that TikTok scrubs material on its app outside of China that is considered unpalatable by the Chinese government and therefore helps spread a sanitized view about China outside the country’s borders. TikTok now says that it doesn’t house data on U.S. users in China and that the Chinese government doesn’t censor its global video app.The discussion about TikTok in U.S. political circles has become caught up in the broader tug of war between the U.S. and China, but the fundamental issue is real. This isn’t the first non-American internet service to get big in the U.S. But this the first time, truly, that Americans have had to consider what it means to have a popular consumer internet service that isn’t owned by an American company. I suspect it won’t be the last time.(3)This is not new ground for most other countries. Facebook and its Instagram and WhatsApp apps; Google and its YouTube service; Netflix; Twitter; and other digital services from U.S. companies have become prevalent in many parts of the world. Foreign governments have at times chafed at the internet dominance by American companies for both justifiable and bogus reasons and have sought to make those companies comply with local laws and norms.It’s mostly understandable for governments outside the U.S. to have those worries about American internet services. It’s likewise mostly understandable for the U.S. to consider the implications when an Internet service from a company in China or Russia gains traction in America. What I wonder is whether what’s happening now is a declaration that an internet company cannot operate in the U.S. if it comes from a country with which the U.S. has fundamental and unresolvable disagreements over government policies or values.There has been anxiety in technology circles for years that the world is being divided into two or more versions of the internet. There is the U.S. version, mostly freewheeling and free, that had become something of a global default. There’s the Chinese version, a parallel world in which activity and speech are tightly controlled by the government and from which foreign internet companies are largely barred. Some people also talk about a European internet and maybe an Indian internet, again with standards for behavior and company conduct that aligns with government priorities.On the one hand, I am an American and I’d rather live in an American-style internet than one mirroring Vietnam, where what happens online is commandeered by an authoritarian government. On the other hand, tax regimes differ from country to country, in reflection of different government’s policy priorities. Should internet policy be so fundamentally different than tax policy? (There are legitimate technical reasons why it’s harder to have country-by-country internet services.)Facebook, Google, Apple and Netflix have had to grapple with the balance between sticking to their American-honed principles while also complying with different standards and laws in all the countries where they operate. That may mean the companies have to push back when they believe their principles are compromised too much, and it may mean the companies should not do business in some places where the rules are fundamentally at odds with what their leaders and home country citizens believe.There are not necessarily easy answers. U.S. internet companies do fail to strike the right balance outside of America’s borders, and do and should face scrutiny from the media, U.S. lawmakers and other outsiders when that happens.ByteDance should face the same scrutiny when it sets foot outside China’s borders. ByteDance and TikTok leadership will have to figure out how to be a Chinese company that doesn’t always operate by Chinese internet norms. That isn’t something China’s internet companies have been forced to grapple with until recently. That country’s popular internet companies including Tencent, Weibo, Douban and Baidu have mostly been used in China or by the Chinese diaspora. That is starting to change with TikTok and other apps such as the TikTok-like app called Kuaishou or Kwai. (2)Chinese internet companies, and American citizens and politicians, face a similar challenge. They have to care how the rest of the world thinks and behaves after being insulated from those realities for a long time.I don’t know the right way to deal with this in the U.S., but it’s long overdue for Americans and U.S. political representatives to take seriously — truly seriously; not in hyperbolic panic — how we should feel about digital hangouts incubated in a country that may not share what we consider American values.(1) I'm going to leave a discussion of the longtime U.S. government distrust of Huawei, the Chinese telecommunications equipment provider, for another day.(2) In contrast to internet companies, Chinese hardware companies such as Huawei, Xiaomi, Lenovo and the drone maker DJI Innovations have had success outside of China. Arguably, pure internet companies face trickier standards of norms and laws outside their home countries. And for the purposes of this column, I'm not considering services provided by Chinese companies such as Didi and Alibaba, which use the internet and smartphones to provide real-world services such as on-demand car rides and e-commerce orders.To contact the author of this story: Shira Ovide at sovide@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Daniel Niemi at dniemi1@bloomberg.netThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Shira Ovide is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering technology. She previously was a reporter for the Wall Street Journal.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

Is Schwab Fundamental U.S. Broad Market Index ETF (FNDB) a Strong ETF Right Now?
Tue, 24 Dec 2019 16:42:04 +0000
Smart Beta ETF report for FNDB

3 Blue-Chip Tech Stocks to Buy for 2020
Tue, 24 Dec 2019 16:39:04 +0000
We found three blue-chip technology stocks, with the help of our Zacks Stock Screener, that investors might want to buy for 2020…

Should John Hancock Multifactor Large Cap ETF (JHML) Be on Your Investing Radar?
Tue, 24 Dec 2019 16:39:04 +0000
Style Box ETF report for JHML

Related Posts