The new 'market bellwether' at the moment is Apple; less so Amazon. If you've been around investing for awhile; you'll remember when this phrase: 'what's good for General Motors is good for the country, and for the market'.

Let's nibble a bit on Apple:

Apple (AAPL) historically has struggled to get a premium market multiple because it is perceived as a one-product company with shrinking margins. First of all it has never really been true in recent years (even the Mac segment has lots of room to grow within the consumer and business space). Second, the new iPhone 'X-pensive' has a higher margin that supported the improved price performance. New designs often have a lower margin; but ironically simply pushing the majority of buyers into the 256 GB model (by not having a 128 GB interim level) dramatically increases Apple's profit margins on the '10'. 
 

Little noticed, Apple Services segment increased by 33% (that's huge), and the integration with AR and AI is barely touching the surface so far (and that is not a swipe at Microsoft's 'Surface', a good product in a different space). I think we can debate whether Apple has a string of innovations further down the road (they likely do and will); and to us (aside trading moves) it's been a 'hold' since the last entry (57/share split-adjusted) for investors. 

So what's the rub? That it's a bellwether and the broad market is hardly yet willing to recognize that Apple represents slightly over 25% of capitalization of the entire S&P 500 Index. That ties the fortunes of that one company to a market that is long-in-the-tooth by any measure. However it also provides a 'cover' to mask the rotational distributions that have gone-on for months. 

There's another 'mask', actually a shadow. It's likely next week's coming 'topic du jour'  which will be an argument about a purported 'defect' in the new iPhone 10. Apple will say it's 'normal; customers will disagree; and the result will be a lack of research of what they have bought with iPhone X. How so? 

iPhone X is an OLED display. There will be reports that 'burn-in' or freezing is occurring; and Apple will say that's not a defect and warranty will not cover it, so just turn down the brightness and also avoid static object display for a long time without turning off (hard to do since the home page IS essentially a static image). 

This IS why I have never bought an OLED television  although after a time it really is the preferable display. Of the ones on the market, the conclusion was that Sony had the best algorithms as far as 'smoothing-out' the image retention issue; but none of them address the half-life issue adequately. The newest Sony is 'lit' differently so does better. 

Now at time time I remarked that OLED was fine for watches and phones, at the same time 'when new' it would look good to the consumer in the store, a way to sell the significantly more expensive product. I also mentioned that in 2 years the pricier TV set would look diminish by comparison with a regular LED/LCD. Now I know that are other viewpoints; but that was mine. So what about this screen?

Samsung makes the display; they may 'source' the 'glass' from LG or make it in-house. So in a sense they do have large panels but deem them as not suitable for long-term televisions (they sell 5 year warranties and don't want to deal with that.. imagine the half-life and burn-in claims that could arise). I know I'll hear from several members that bought OLED, it's beautiful I agree and I hope that I and the developers from the largest TV firms are wrong or it just doesn't bother you. 

What Samsung does is 'cut the large panels' into small screens to fit those products that are deemed OK for OLED. That includes their Galaxy as well as Apple X phones. Smart phones are smaller and presumed not so critical to the user; although Apple has marketed this as the 'best ever' in display; in contrast ratio (OLED does achieve that); and hence color accuracy. They're absolutely correct; they just failed to mention 'fade and burn-in' but will. As it is more of an issue on TVs after several years and most don't keep phones so long it's really not an important issue in my view; but watch it hit media in the next week or so. If you get a correction in Apple stock as a result, it will be temporary in nature and most reviewers loved the X phone and weren't bothered (nor mentioning this characteristic); or didn't use it 'long enough'.
 

Bottom-line: I mention an otherwise slightly technical arcane issue since it is Apple that divines the direction of the market Averages for the moment. It is the 'General Motors of our era'. Apple might shake-out and recover later. 

As to iPhone X; after a day with it (and initially surprisingly disliking it relative to my iPhone 7 Plus) our 'relationship' is improving and I see the brilliance in the design. I still feel this is the future-era 'smaller' model; with a 10 Plus on the horizon (6.3" screen). This one is 5.8 so everyone 'thinks' it's bigger than the 5.5 on the Plus. Not exactly. It's narrow. This shift in aspect-ratio means the same 'material' is compressed a bit into a narrower width (it's all there); while the vertical or 'portrait' mode is a little taller. 

But that's the beauty; it's indeed not as broad as the iPhone 7/8 Plus; but it feels like a 'phone rather than a phablat' if you recall that term a couple of years ago. We got used to the larger dimensions; and I missed it until say about lunch time. Why? I was talking with a friend and put the phone in my pocket... and it fit! Then I realized I had a phone with 'almost' as much wide space (and more height) but again I had a phone (which is what iPhone was meant to be in the first place); rather than a mini tablet. At that point, aside a learning curve (and there is one) to operate the device; we got along well. 
 

The Broadcom possible takeover bid for Qualcomm is really the big story Friday. I properly welcomed their initiative to move their domicile back to the USA from Singapore; and remain excited about that prospect. The shares sold-off as it might short-term weigh-on earnings; and I was critical of those who were short-sighted. That proved valid today as the story of a takeover bid being possible popped both stocks solidly higher. 

Sure it's possible the move to the US was a smokescreen to establish what will obviously be a friendlier regulatory climate for such a huge merger if it's to come. However that keeps both companies in the US and profits as well; so it the decision to move back to the USA was motivated by knowing that's what comes next; so be it; no problem. Shareholders of both will do well. If there is no 'bid', then you could have some retracing temporarily. 
 

In sum,  the overall market pattern evolves as it has. Horsing around almost daily new highs for the Senior Indexes; while breadth decays quite often on a daily basis; and rotational corrections and rebounds underlies the action. 

Clearly with tax-reform on the horizon (starting in 2018, not retroactive as a ridiculous notion circulated suggested that) and in absence of exogenous or seriously damaging events, the near-term risks remain correction not some catastrophic disaster. This may sound like a broken record but it's accurate and sure better for investors holding their core positions and for traders that mostly get chopped-up if they attempt an excessive amount of shorting.