You might be referring to a regression toward the mean more than LOLN...  somewhat similar but quite different...  My point is, that in LOLN you have a theoretical mean.  An actual statistic that says, it SHOULD be this,,...  why is that number less than 1,000 for apple..??  it is not...  People just use the law of large number as a catchy saying for that apple has become "too big"...  people fear that which they do not know... In 1970, people said, no company could EVER be worth 1 billion, the "law of large number" will catch up to them....  wtf...???  idiots... those same people are the idiots today....  apple will average out to their mean after market saturation and no more new product categories...  how that equates to something less than 100% growth from here is beyond me... after china mobile and growth in emerging markets due to IP4 being "free" the phone business ALONE will get us to 1,500, easily...  I would say, that if I am being truely honest, apple will average out at about $3,000 in 2020s, after reaching a peak of $4,000 sometime before then... this seems more reasonable than, apple wont make it to 1,000....  wtf..??? haha

hehe....  smoke em if you got em..... 

Andy Zaky has not missed a bottom yet. I have followed him for several years. He called the bottom five times in the past on interim declines and was accurate each time. It is uncanny.

With several introductions Apple takes a hit for speculative rumours. Once it was the iPad would fail for no external memory. They no one would by iPhone 4 due to antenna. Then iPhone 4S was same form factor as the 4. No it is the maps are no good. In each case the phone sold better and the stock told the story. The best chance to buy in was the media created did, just as it is now with the 10% drop from $705.

I read Apple Insider and other sites to get backup data from the field. All the analysts close to the ground doing store checks and Asia inventory checks show they are selling every unit they can make. iPad mini is confirmed as well. This Xmas will be a blowout. It is no longer a question. The earnings from that will force the stock up. $800 to $900 is guaranteed. I would not bet against Andy about $1,000.

Zaky always has good insight on APPL, unlike a lot of the gibberish I see published on most of these tech sites.

Thanks AppleInsider, I hope you request more articles by Zaky and others who actually know what they are talking about rather than usual blah, blah, blah reactionary b.s. .

$1000 or not hinges on the Nov. election.

I've followed Andy's articles over the years and have always found them to be objective, insightful and very profitable to act on. This one is no different. I'm sure over the next 6 months, Andy is spot on that Apple is going much, much higher.

 

Parties rise and fall.

 

Apple's Apple.

To be a "little more rich", you would have to actually sell when it hits $1000. For anyone to have any sort of financial gain, they have to sell, and thus, find a buyer. Are there going to be enough buyers for all the people selling when it nears $1000? Who is still going to be buying at that point?

 

I think this will keep the stock from truly hitting $1000. Sure, it will hit $1000 someday, due to inflation, but as the stock reaches that mythical number, people will start selling off, keeping the price down.

 

As for this article and the analyst involved, I suspect there is little correlation between the predictions and the actual outcomes. Humans like to believe they "knew it all along", but in reality, it was just a guess.

 

No.   I was referring to LOLN.  Regression toward the mean is another beast, I agree.    And I agree completely with what you are saying (you'll see that in my original post), I state that there is no reason to believe that the Apple stock is more or less than 1,000 for Apple.      I just stated that one could say that the Apple stock will not continue to rise indefinitely if it has a finite mean.   This statement is true, and the truth in the statement does have to do with the law of large numbers.   Regression toward the mean has more to do the likely outliers (extreme data points) and subsequent (or previous) data taken to the outliers.  I understand that principle as well.   It is another one that is hugely misunderstood and misinterpreted.

 

We don't know Apple's long-term mean stock value....  so there is no way we could be applying theory of large numbers to determine that stock will tend to go down (or up) in the future.    Again, I said given a finite long-term average Apple stock value... it can not increase indefinitely.  In-other-words, I'm not saying anything useful.

When Apple was $13 I didn't buy it because I was still in grade school, and not an investor.  

 

Yes market cap matters.  Market cap determines the value of the stock, not the dollar price.  For example:  Google's SP is higher than Apple's, but Apple as a company is worth more.  

 

Market saturation doesn't mean that Apple couldn't sell more.  It means that the markets themselves already have reached an equilibrium in the total amount of devices supplied vs. devices demanded.  If the market itself only grows so much, then to increase sales you need to differentiate.  Apple has done very well on differentiation, but not so well that they'll be earning 500 billion in revenue in 5 years just off iPhones and iPads, just as an example.  Their biggest growth has come from creating new markets for themselves.  Look at the iPod, sales are declining and its no longer a significant product for Apple's growth.  

You have a much larger appetite for risk than I do.  Good job trading.  

 

I thought I was doing good doubling up so far this year on a cash account (no margin, no short selling).  

I'm a bit of a newbie investor and not familiar with the term "profit stream". Can you explain? Thanks.

I'm also puzzled how 200 billion in annual profits, about 200 per share, would result in a stock price of just 1000. Thanks in advance for some enlightenment.

"...P/E arguments have been made for why the stock is cheap numerous times over the last 2 years, it's refuted all the time..."

 

Since Apple's stock price has mode than doubled over those two years, it is clear that the P/E arguments were correct, and those that refuted them all the time, were wrong.

Although is known that the economy generally does better during Democratic presidencies, it's not the election results that make a difference, it's more the economic policies that are followed.

haha...  "in-other-words, I'm not saying anything useful"....  yet it is actually one of the more intelligent posts yet... funny stuff....  we are kind of getting to a philosophical discussion here...  The finite mean part of it...  It must have a finite mean right?  But what about inflation..??  What about expanding populations?  I guess I am asking the question, does the mean need to finite, or can apple just continue to grow, albeit at slower rates as it gets larger....??

 

Why would it? In case no one told you, the Republican and Democratic parties are now identical.

 

Google, Wikipedia and this site, http://www.investopedia.com/investing/investing-basics/ are your friends.

 

This argument that there is something special and too big about $1000 share price is common and strongly put by dcorban.

 

But tell me.  If Apple have a 7 for 1 share split is everyone going to understand that $142.86 is just too large, and start selling?

 

There is nothing magical about a particular share price that can ever stop a company from growing.  It's clear nonsense.  It can be so trivially bypassed.

 

 

Neun und neunzig luftballons?

How nice.  Lets go recycle all our iDevices and Apple Desktops and buy Dells and so on.  Meanwhile Apple will continue to get better and we will wait for at least 20 friggen years to see apple stumble while we all play on our android and windows machines and devices.

 

A trolling we will go. A trolling we will go.  Hi ho the merry o a trolling we will go.

Your ignorance is showing. This is in fact the single most accurate Apple analyst in the market, as well as the most conservative in making buy recommendations. His accuracy has been 100%, and right on the mark in terms of timing every single time.

…you don't seem to comprehend the fact that every iPhone and iPad sold is also an iPod thus iPod sales have increased exponentially, just not as a discrete device. On top of that, the average selling price, and margin dollars, of these two "combined use" products that have replaced some discreet iPod sales are significantly higher.

While the technical analysis is no doubt excellent, I have to wonder whether large scale global events might not throw a spanner in the works.

 

I suspect the Euro is doomed.  As European leaders do not seem to have a strategy for an orderly dissolution of the currency, the end game will likely be a disorderly collapse that might well be catastrophic.  I doubt whether Apple's sales would be unscathed in the aftermath.
 

Of course I know that iPhones are going to cannibalize iPod sales and iPads cannibalize laptop sales.  And I'm well aware of all the margins involved.  The point is, that market demand for smartphones is met, meaning we're unlikely to continue seeing the growth Apple has seen in the past without new product lines altogether.  Which I'm not even ruling out.  Just saying that 40% growth every year likely won't continue to 2016... Once market equilibrium is reached Apple can grow on differentiation, but it will be a lower growth rate (with the possibility for contraction). 

 

I don't know why I even bother here.  If you don't think Apple stock is going to be $5000 dollars in a few years I guess you're not welcome here?  This isn't an investing forum, it's a pumpers forum. 

FWIW..." be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful "

Warren Buffett

 

Well, if inflation continues to be positive and Apple's stock continues to hold steady (inflation adjusted) or increase (or even decrease as long as it decreases less than the amount of inflation increases), then I guess Apple's long-term mean stock price wouldn't be finite.   Hard to imagine in reality, but mathematically it is certainly possible.    Of course it will always be finite when measured, but as long as the measurement isn't done at infinity it won't represent Apple's long-term mean stock price.

 

I don't think expanding populations have anything to do with it, though they might aid in a continuously increasing inflation.    The chances of inflation always increasing is about as small as the changes of Apple's stock always increasing.   Both are approximately zero.

Apple has a steady pe of 15, but ex-cash it's decreasing. Why every analyst doesn't see this as a screaming buy is beyond me. A higher dividend will probably start to get people's attention.

Absolutely a higher dividend would help.  In the world of mega-cap stocks, dividends (and whatever financial numbers analysts believe will lead to a higher dividend) are really all that matters. 

Well Andy, it went below $615 unlike you expected. Not holding it against you, because of all of the bad tech news recently. With 30min of trading left, I'm debating how much I should dump in today.........
 

Screw the naysayers, the bears and other clueless people.

 

I loaded up on AAPL today, getting ready for the lift off, happening soon. 

Do I remember you mentioning loading up on Apple when it was a bit over $700 a few weeks ago? I don't mean anything by that, just doing a memory check.

No, that definitely wasn't me. I'd been laying low recently.

 

And I would say, in response..." lege, ongefundeerde commentaar."

I loaded up at the end of September @ $680. They've been sliding ever since! 

I'm in for the long term and have no worry that they'll recover. But it sure would have been nice to have bought a few more shares. I'm contemplating moving some more over to AAPL. This has been a pretty big dip.

Are you using bull call spread?

Well done sir. How did you miss being blinded by the Zaky-light? And where do you see it bottoming out?