Record day pushes Apple stock to nearly a half-trillion dollars in value [u] - Page 2

It's not unlikely. Why should it be? It's only a number. There could be some resistance there, but it would break through. That's assuming Apple continues on a major growth pattern.

We're only talking about a doubling now. Four, five years? Sure it's possible.

Again, market cap vs. equity. For equity, there are more shares being counted. Another several billion worth.

how would being insanely rich change the world?

they are already insanely rich, there are already insanely rich people and other companies...

call me when they decide to change the world.

because it looks like capitalism to me, hardly new.

different toys...same game.

I see this all the time with financial managers. They're not really oriented towards making money for their client's that's above the averages of the markets. They ARE concerned with losing money for them.

I'll give two examples. In early January 2011, a friend had about $350,000 to add to his investments, and asked me for some advice. Naturally, I advised him to buy Apple, and he said that he would tell his financial adviser to do so. He has a managed account (ugh!). Several days later, we meet, and I ask him what happened. He said his advisor said that it was a good idea, and when it pulled back to $290 (it was about $320) he would do so. Well, we know what happened, it never pulled back, and he never bought the stock.

More recently, another friend showed me his account, another managed account. He had a lot of small, dippy investments. About half were up, and the rest about even, or down. I also said that he should get rid of about two thirds of it, and of course, buy Apple. That was about six months ago. Nothing happened when he asked. He told me that he approached his advisor again two weeks ago, and the guy agreed to buy some stock. He buys 60 shares! Today, I see him again, and we discuss it. I convince him to talk to the guy again, and TELL him to buy more. He does, and gets another 60 shares. The advisor is embarrassed he didn't buy anything six months ago, but he still didn't buy as much as he could of two weeks ago!

These guys are strange. They really are.

Self interest and crusifictions are great motivators!

As you obviously know... They are maximizing their investments... Not yours...

Do you understand the difference between a growth company and a company whose significant growth is behind it? The first doesn't need to offer dividends, and the second requires it.

Apple has returned more to shareholders than any other large cap, at 47% over the past 12 months. Many financial people think that not only doesn't Apple need to offer a dividend, but shouldn't.

On the other hand, except for the beginning of this year, Microsoft does everything they're supposed to, share buybacks, dividends, but their stock hasn't risen in ten years. The current rise is because of Win 8, and the thought it will get them back on track with tablets, etc.

Which stock would you have liked to own over the past several years?

You're making no sense.

Surely not mine. I would never pay someone to manage my accounts.

http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/aapl/st...ff&symbol=MSFT

Note the orange flatline at the bottom of the chart!

It's your lack of understanding.

You could have fooled me!

Oye, Oye!

Here's another example of where you're making no sense: You're probably talking about 'money managers' not 'financial' managers (that's what managers who work in the office of a CFO are called, y'know).

"They ARE concerned with losing money"? What does that even mean? Unless you meant to add a "/s" at the end.

Maybe your experience is different, but I have not met anyone in my life that wakes up in the morning and says "today, I am going to go out and make decisions to lose money."

The problem is that most brokers/advisors make commission on churns...

Of course they do. But not because they wake up in the morning with the goal of losing money on your behalf. They actually perhaps care about the fact that, if -- by luck or skill -- they end up making money for you, they stand a chance of making even higher commissions in the future from other unsuspecting folks!

If you knew as much about this as you think you do, it would be amazing!

From the Financial Times today:


If you can see this page, it's the article where the quote comes from. Live and learn.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/a49cb...#axzz1niNRgfLJ

If you can't get it, the name of the article is:

Last updated: February 28, 2012 11:39 pm

Apple joins exclusive $500bn club

By Chris Nuttall and Richard Waters in San Francisco

You know, this is just another time when you start spouting nonsense, and trivial junk. Sure, if you prefer "Money manager", fine. It's really not worth arguing about that.

They are concerned with losing money. That, you don't understand? What, are you trying to be obtuse? Would you have preferred me to word it differently? Should I have instead said they are concerned that they don't lose money? Would that have been easier for you to understand? It was pretty obvious as to what I meant. They are concerned about losing money. Concerned should have been a hint to you.

Why do you bother to even comment on these things? Your comments are so often off the wall.

Is it uncommon for a company's cash holdings to be 20% of their market cap. Is Apple that undervalued? That's like bank percentages, right?

Actually, it would help if you could come off your pedestal and actually read what I wrote. Or even better, comprehend what I wrote, including the simple arithmetic involved. I said (re-read, if you wish, at post #19): "Both Yahoo Finance and Google Finance say that AAPL has 932.37M shares outstanding. At the risk of sounding nitpicky, that would say $536.27, not $536.87....."

I was saying that, if, as Yahoo and Google suggest that the correct number of shares outstanding is 932.37M, then the price per share would be $536.27 not $536.87. If that is not the correct number of shares, then the correct market cap would be different, genius. (For the record, Nuttall and Waters are using 941M as the number of shares outstanding).

Btw, that would make FT right, and Google and Yahoo wrong. Which is certainly possible. But also wrong would be the headline of this AI article that we are all responding to, which is titled "...Nearly Half-Trillion Dollars...."

Why don't you write to AI and ask them correct the headline if you are so damn sure?

Know what words you are using, and stop being so defensive.

A "thank you" would be enough - use the words more appropriately in the future.



I still have no clue what you mean, because this paragraph is completely obtuse. Perhaps someone else can explain. You;re just making it worse.



Really? Show me one other. And argue why.

Otherwise, move along.

Now you're backtracking. The Financial Time's article is pretty clear. It's what I was saying as well. It's not a talk about a few hundred million. It's billions different. About a $504 billion number. That's what I was talking about. Not what you're concerned about. That's minor.

For example, MDN likes to do a feature of "Apple shares hit new all-time intraday, closing*highs".

The problem is that they quote a market cap for ExxonMobile from Yahoo Finance that's different from the one from CNN Marketwatch. Today, for example, MDN's number is $410.71.

But CNN has it as $417.7. That's a big discrepancy. It's the difference in the way they count the shares.

Thank you for what, not understanding what I wrote, and causing unnecessary problems? You really do have problems with reading. Just say you're sorry about making such a big deal about nothing, and that you're embarrassed at the mistake.

No argument there... The point, though, if it it is important enough to you -- you can position yourself to do a better job.

It really depends on what you want to spend your time doing!

Backtracking schmacktracking.

At this point your seemingly desperate obsession with wanting to sound right (at the risk of any and all lameness) trumps your ability to comprehend what the headline of this article says, what the body of the text of the article says, and what I wrote.

Have you written to AI to change the headline? In which case, do you realize that this thread is moot?

Also, allow me to repeat my question since you made a shrill and insulting claim when you said "Your comments are so often off the wall": Really? Show me one other. And argue why.

I have no doubt that you can. If you - they - can (and people who let them manage their money can) distinguish between skill and luck.

Sure you can, don't be silly.

I bought in at $194 and again at $343. The second go-round, my broker thought I was nuts and tried to talk me out of it. I said "screw that, I'm going balls-deep!" and dropped a much bigger load into it than I did the first go-round. I'm about ready to jump in again.

C'mon in, the water's warm!

Confused...

Why is this controversy going on between two well-reasoned participants in AI?

I see good posts on both sides... Normally I am an opinionated asshole!

You're right..... what's a few billion between friends..... if someone thinks it's $504B, so be it.



(Although, in addition to www.finance.yahoo.com, www.google.com/finance, and AppleInsider, WSJ, Forbes, thestreet.com, and Bloomberg must be wrong as well:

http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2012...view_wsjlatest

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavi...cap-hits-500b/

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11437...cm_ven=GOOGLEN

http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/AAPL:US)

that was uncomfortably sexual. lol

Oh please! Really, if you insist on saying things that don't relate to my posts, and ignore links, then nothing you say is relevant.

Because he isn't interested in actually reading what I say. He reads it to believe what he want's to believe. I didn't write to discuss a minor difference. I was pointing out that there are different ways of calculating this, which there are. Of course, if he wants to think that he knows better...

As the Financial Times is showing (which is what I was trying to show), is that there is Market cap, and equity. Calculated slightly differently. Most sites use simple market cap, but occasionally, some will use equity, which is higher, as the FT shows. In this case it's $504 billion, not 498+, or 499+.

Somehow, he wants to deny this difference. I don't know why. It's not as through the FT isn't one of the most respected financial journals around.

Then, and again I don't know why, he assumes I mean that financial advisors, or managers are trying to lose money for their clients. If anyone else here thinks I meant that, I would be surprised. Even if my wording wasn't the best, it was pretty obvious that I meant that they were concerned that they NOt lose money for their clients.

But for some reason, he chooses to think the other way, a nonsensable conclusion that should have had him wondering at his interpretation. But instead, he chooses to confront me on it, thinking that I actually mean that these guys spend time thinking how to lose their clients money.

Nuts! Really!

I provided a link to the first, but he doesn't seem to have read the quote either that explained the position, and keeps on repeating what isn't relevant to what I was saying.

Then he doesn't understand my explanation of the second.

So, does anyone really think I was saying that managers spend time trying to find ways of losing their clients money? How could anyone think that?

So he starts insulting me instead. I suppose I should just have removed his posts. But instead I try to reply, even though it becomes increasingly difficult to be objective towards him.

Groan.

In addition to www.finance.yahoo.com, www.google.com/finance, and AppleInsider, you might wish to know (as noted above) that WSJ, Forbes, thestreet.com, and Bloomberg agree with me (please make sure to read the whole article in the instance where they say AAPL crossed $500B in mkt cap, i.e., after hours):

http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2012...view_wsjlatest

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavi...cap-hits-500b/

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11437...cm_ven=GOOGLEN

http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/AAPL:US

New flash: All the really important financial data sources in the US must be wrong, and melgross (and that UK newspaper, Financial Times) must be right!

Quit it. Sometimes you can be wrong. And that's not such a big deal.

Stop throwing your weight around. I dare you to.

But I would expect the decency of someone from AI - not you, since you appear to be conflating your personal interests with those of AI - explaining exactly what rule I violated.

Apple made nearly $14/s during the last Q, mostly due to the iPhone 4S. On the next upgrade, they will have most likely compatibility with China Mobile... that is huge. iPad is being adopted by the mass market including schools, universities, government, etc and that wave will go worldwide. The Mac sales that grew 50% last year, particularly due to the laptops. Apple has a tinny share of the PC market.

Even with iPhone saturation in the US market, sales could double in the next 18 months. Even with PE compression, the stock could come close to 4 digits.

Just a scenario and speculation. Meh, all it takes is for somebody to start a war in the Persian Gulf and all bets are off.

You REALLY aren't reading anything I write, or what I quoted, are you? You insist in repeating something that I didn't say, and that the FT didn't say. As for your putting down "that UK newspaper" that just shows prejudice and ignorance. Why don't you finally read the quote.

Neither I or the FT are saying that the $504 billion number is market cap. But you don't know that, because you didn't bother to read it, did you?

Alright, let's address the substantive issues.


I carefully read what you had to say. You simply said, without quoting FT or clarifying anything at all: "Again, market cap vs. equity. For equity, there are more shares being counted. Another several billion worth."

I noted that the statement makes no sense all. It simply didn't, because my post (which you were responding to) was specifically saying that, if the number of shares outstanding is 932.37M, then a $500B mkt cap would require a price of $536.27/share. That is straightforward arithmetic with clearly defined assumptions/caveats.

It had nothing to do with my knowing better or worse. That is your interprertaion.


If FT is among the 'most respected,' so are Yahoo Finance, Google Finance, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, theStreet.com, Bloomberg, all of which show a number different from that of FT.

I reconciled the difference by giving you the arithmetic (FT is assuming 941M shares, while everyone else is assuming my number) and you simply chose to ignore that fact.


You call me "nuts" or say "If you knew as much about this as you think you do..." or "...spouting nonsense, and trivial junk..." or "...are you trying to be obtuse..." or "Your comments are so often off the wall" or "...You really do have problems with reading..." (I could go on, but you get the drift) and you have the temerity to say that I am insulting? Why, because you are a moderator, you think have the right to insult your members and not be called on that? That is sheer arrogance and hypocrisy, sir.

I could give you many examples of where you insult posters on this forum (and attempt to pull your weight as a moderator) a great deal. Stop it. It makes you, and by inference AI, look silly.

---

Look, I could go on with line-by-line responses to the rest of your post (including where you acknowledge that your wording could have been better -- talk about backtracking!), but frankly, life is too short, it's too late, and I need to get to bed. And it's tiresome.

I'll respond to you tomorrow morning if you had a substantive response to anything the I had to say.

I read everything you wrote, and the article.

If I am "prejudiced and ignorant" about a "UK newspaper," (how about you stop with the insults, and keep the conversation civil) surely you can see that you must be guilty of the same with at least six well-respected US newspapers and websites that I cited.

Talk to you tomorrow! (If you didn't pull some phony rank, that is).

Dividends are fine when the stock market is providing steady returns from solid companies. The problem we have now is many of the old reliable stocks have done poorly in recent years, often with greatly reduced dividends. Just look at Goldman Sachs, for example, which prior to the collapse had one of the best track records of any company available. In the years since, they've lost money for the first time in their history.