You still don't understand Apple's market, or the real significance of that 10%.
Nokia also has dominant marketshare. Now compare your average Nokia smartphone to the iPhone.
Windows is a bargain-basement brand, and sells like one.
I agree with you, but I want to play devils advocate. Would most businesses want bargain basement PCs for their employees. Do they really care, as long as it is cheap. Would most employees really need all of the features that a Mac provides.
Then they are idiots. There is no way a diversified portfolio could possibly be down 90% from this time last year. Even at the market?s low point that is not possible without really trying. Monty Brewster would have had a hard time losing 90% of his $30, though he did only have 30 days to do it.
Most people aren't very smart when it comes to investing but that doesn't take away from the point that the Fed is now lending to banks at 0% and the banks are taking that money and putting it in the market instead of opening up lending.
If anything the average consumer has pulled back from investing due to the economy and the fact that many don't have the extra money to invest.
Lets be honest here, Apple didn't change anything to drop down below 80.00 and they didn't change anything to go back above 200.00. Like most companies in this market they are at the mercy of how the market trends. If the market takes a hard hit again dropping to 7 or 8k Apple will follow right along. On the flip side it will benefit if the market hits 14k.
While you and I don't get this rate the Fed allows banks to borrow at near 0% and what is happening instead of the banks opening up borrowing they are taking the money they borrow at 0% and investing it in the market and making huge returns.
Wouldn't it be great if you and I could borrow at 0% and play around with investing?
The entire bailout was too opening up lending and that just hasn't happened, the banks instead have sucked the money into a black hole and of course the government didnt even bother to track it.
Thanks for that, makes sense. It verifies my impression that instead of pushing for structural reforms to the banking system this has turned into (another) merry go round for some financial institutions. Problem is that any government doesn't have enough power to leverage on these guys. They blackmailed everyone to get the hand outs and what with them having politicians pocketed they can do whatever they please with it. That's my view at least, like I said my economics knowledge is very rudimentary to say the least. Problem is this sets things up for another vicious circle...
Does anyone know if Apple would be more likely to hit $280 per share if they did say a 5:1 stock split, such that they would actually need $56 per "new" share?
I seem to remember reading once that there were some funds that would only invest in stocks with a single share value below a certain amount, but I may be wrong. Would be interested to hear the views of someone who knows about these things.
Makes no difference at all. Splits don't attract new investors like they did in the old days when trading odd lots of shares cost more than multiples of 100, or when a $1,000 was a lot of money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater
AAPL has a 52 week low of 78.20 A year from now it can just as easily be there then at 280.00 so trying to predict the market a year from now is a total joke. Apple is doing great now but 7 months ago it was around 85 a share and seven months from now depending on the ecomony it could be back to 80.00 a share.
I'm not saying its going to be but no one can predict the market a year out.
None of which changes anything I said. I wasn't making a prediction myself, only reporting accurately what the analyst's predictions mean.
It is also important to know that the consensus of analysts is not $280 but $232, and further that in order for AAPL to justify the consensus, they'd have to grow earnings roughly 15% from the past year. That's not a very difficult feat for Apple, considering they were growing that much during the depths of the recession.
Let's face it the important thing is that Apple survives as a company that can continue to innovate and move tech in new directions. Overtaking MS doesn't help with that at all. In fact it can lead to Wall Street putting a lot of pressure on a company.
A ravenous Wall Street has ruined more than a few companies. If focus is taken off products and R&D then Apple gets screwed. Even a CEO of the decade would have trouble dealling with to many demands from the markets.
Dave
I read all the posts in this thread, and like yours the best.
It is really hard to maintain creativity over a length of time in a corporation. Hubris sets in after great success. Hopefully, in Apple's case, their focus on good design and great products rather than the bottom line will help. Market cap is not really a good measure for a tech company IMO.
Staying debt-free helps to reduce financial pressure. If Apple can manage to stay focused, and not spread themselves out too thin, they will be OK. It's great that they managed to transform Mac OS X into the iPhone OS with a certain amount of portability of new functions between the platforms.
I believe the worst things Apple could do is to start market researching or trying to meet the demands and expectations of the IT community (I don't mean disrespect here) or fail to depreciate their software and hardware as needed to keep a tight ship. The profits will follow.
Thanks for that, makes sense. It verifies my impression that instead of pushing for structural reforms to the banking system this has turned into (another) merry go round for some financial institutions. Problem is that any government doesn't have enough power to leverage on these guys. They blackmailed everyone to get the hand outs and what with them having politicians pocketed they can do whatever they please with it. That's my view at least, like I said my economics knowledge is very rudimentary to say the least. Problem is this sets things up for another vicious circle...
Let's see?government is bad, so let's de-regulate. Who advocated that? Those who believe the free market is self correcting. Right?
Amazing how minors are always right in their own eyes...
Amazing how the majority always seeks to bully and poke fun at the minority - superiority complex? That's why I always like being in the minority, in this particular instance it puts me above the likes of you.
It always amazes me that people that buy Apple products are so happy that Apple makes so much profit from them. It defies logic. I still say that Apple should just put a "Donations" button on their website so these people could just give them money. Why make them go through the trouble of actually buying something.
I enjoyed your off topic digression. Do you think that aapl will have issues with the saturation of the computer market too in the neare future? I mean how many more people need to buy a computer? And what more incentives can you give to people for buying a new computer since for the vast majority since the c2d from intel and what with the vast hd capacities are pretty much covered (by far), whilst a few years back you would always expect some tangible perfomance bump. How can you convince most people that 8 gb in ram isn't enough so they should get the 12 gb new model, when a few years back these numbers concerned hds!! Of course branching out with a tablet, and bringing a media center to the table possibly, plus the iphone platform where there's still room for improvement and hence incentive to buy will not only sustain apple but will have more and more of a halo effect in mac sales.
Of course no one has thus far adressed how much the recent price rise has been a product of stock manipulation. And I think it has.
Anyway, I have some money on the side and I d love to invest in apple stock. But I am a novice in investment and I wouldn't want to lose my money...Anyone suggest that I BUY?\
My two main concerns are Steve's health and the financial crisis, the latter because it seems the us and the world has not and isn't prepare to bring about the structural changes in the business sector that would prevent a future melt down. We bailed the bankers out but they still have the power to blackmail for that money without compromising to downsize and break up where needed or to keep to increase their capital wrt the speculation. Of course there's the issue of what to do, if you make them keep more capital you are safeguarding against another serious crisis, but you are also depriving the economy of that money for growth. Of course speculation (which was what this guys were doing) is not growth...anyway I veered off topic, and in an area I have very rudimentary knowledge of.
PCs are slowly becoming dummy terminals, a.k.a. TV sets of the 21st century. (How much memory/processor speed/hard drive space do you need in order to run applications remotely via a web browser.) Until most applications become remote (nothing to install on the client), hardware manufacturers (including Apple) will continue to milk as much profit as possible. In the future, software companies will charge subscription rates or "rent" for software, similar to "pay per view" with cable TV.
It always amazes me that people that buy Apple products are so happy that Apple makes so much profit from them. It defies logic. I still say that Apple should just put a "Donations" button on their website so these people could just give them money. Why make them go through the trouble of actually buying something.
We're enthusiastic about Apple's prodcuts, something the average PC user has no notion of, for obvious reasons. Admiring the company for what it does is not a big step, and is quite refershing, given incalculable corporate incompetence and the bland, derivative products that surround us.
Makes no difference at all. Splits don't attract new investors like they did in the old days when trading odd lots of shares cost more than multiples of 100, or when a $1,000 was a lot of money.
Thanks for the feedback - that makes sense.
That said, is there any psychological benefit in splitting to keep the individual share price down? What I mean is, do you think an individual investor would prefer to have 25 x $10 shares vs. 1 x $250 share? I can see that institutional investors won't care about such things, but I could imagine for individual traders it might, and hence demand could be spurred?
That said, is there any psychological benefit in splitting to keep the individual share price down? What I mean is, do you think an individual investor would prefer to have 25 x $10 shares vs. 1 x $250 share? I can see that institutional investors won't care about such things, but I could imagine for individual traders it might, and hence demand could be spurred?
Maybe some people think that way, but if they do, they should probably be storing their cash in a pillowcase.
Amazing how the majority always seeks to bully and poke fun at the minority - superiority complex? That's why I always like being in the minority, in this particular instance it puts me above the likes of you.
"Always drink upstream of the herd."
I guess that is how it looks like from minorities' point of view... not unlike teens complaining at their parents bullying them with all the rules and prohibitions. Which, usually, has nothing to do with reality
Really... I'm finding Apple-only users, on average, much more aggressive and with much more inflated superiority/elitist complex. Don't you..?
No I understand the whole "premium ", Lexus, BMW analogy or what have you. But why must we contantly compare them then if they are so different in their goals. Why are Apple fans so stuck in this "vengeance is mine" mindset with MS and it's profits and its share. It's so ridiculous!!!!!!
Because even companies with different foci occupy the same market and overlap certain niches so that market share and the ability to scale production and distribution is important.
Ruth's Chris doesn't have to always worry about McDonalds but they are both restaurants and you can get an angus burger at McD's and a hamburger at Ruth's Chris and that overlap does matter.
Also third parties look at this stuff very carefully when they support companies. The difference between 8% and 12% of the market or 20% and 40% of revenue make Macs not just viable but accelerating.
Amazing how the majority always seeks to bully and poke fun at the minority - superiority complex? That's why I always like being in the minority, in this particular instance it puts me above the likes of you.
"Always drink upstream of the herd."
Only problem in the case the herd is drinking kool aid.
Comments
You still don't understand Apple's market, or the real significance of that 10%.
Nokia also has dominant marketshare. Now compare your average Nokia smartphone to the iPhone.
Windows is a bargain-basement brand, and sells like one.
I agree with you, but I want to play devils advocate. Would most businesses want bargain basement PCs for their employees. Do they really care, as long as it is cheap. Would most employees really need all of the features that a Mac provides.
Then they are idiots. There is no way a diversified portfolio could possibly be down 90% from this time last year. Even at the market?s low point that is not possible without really trying. Monty Brewster would have had a hard time losing 90% of his $30, though he did only have 30 days to do it.
Most people aren't very smart when it comes to investing but that doesn't take away from the point that the Fed is now lending to banks at 0% and the banks are taking that money and putting it in the market instead of opening up lending.
If anything the average consumer has pulled back from investing due to the economy and the fact that many don't have the extra money to invest.
Lets be honest here, Apple didn't change anything to drop down below 80.00 and they didn't change anything to go back above 200.00. Like most companies in this market they are at the mercy of how the market trends. If the market takes a hard hit again dropping to 7 or 8k Apple will follow right along. On the flip side it will benefit if the market hits 14k.
http://billparish.wordpress.com/2007...oft-an-update/
While you and I don't get this rate the Fed allows banks to borrow at near 0% and what is happening instead of the banks opening up borrowing they are taking the money they borrow at 0% and investing it in the market and making huge returns.
Wouldn't it be great if you and I could borrow at 0% and play around with investing?
The entire bailout was too opening up lending and that just hasn't happened, the banks instead have sucked the money into a black hole and of course the government didnt even bother to track it.
Thanks for that, makes sense. It verifies my impression that instead of pushing for structural reforms to the banking system this has turned into (another) merry go round for some financial institutions. Problem is that any government doesn't have enough power to leverage on these guys. They blackmailed everyone to get the hand outs and what with them having politicians pocketed they can do whatever they please with it. That's my view at least, like I said my economics knowledge is very rudimentary to say the least. Problem is this sets things up for another vicious circle...
Does anyone know if Apple would be more likely to hit $280 per share if they did say a 5:1 stock split, such that they would actually need $56 per "new" share?
I seem to remember reading once that there were some funds that would only invest in stocks with a single share value below a certain amount, but I may be wrong. Would be interested to hear the views of someone who knows about these things.
Makes no difference at all. Splits don't attract new investors like they did in the old days when trading odd lots of shares cost more than multiples of 100, or when a $1,000 was a lot of money.
AAPL has a 52 week low of 78.20 A year from now it can just as easily be there then at 280.00 so trying to predict the market a year from now is a total joke. Apple is doing great now but 7 months ago it was around 85 a share and seven months from now depending on the ecomony it could be back to 80.00 a share.
I'm not saying its going to be but no one can predict the market a year out.
None of which changes anything I said. I wasn't making a prediction myself, only reporting accurately what the analyst's predictions mean.
It is also important to know that the consensus of analysts is not $280 but $232, and further that in order for AAPL to justify the consensus, they'd have to grow earnings roughly 15% from the past year. That's not a very difficult feat for Apple, considering they were growing that much during the depths of the recession.
Let's face it the important thing is that Apple survives as a company that can continue to innovate and move tech in new directions. Overtaking MS doesn't help with that at all. In fact it can lead to Wall Street putting a lot of pressure on a company.
A ravenous Wall Street has ruined more than a few companies. If focus is taken off products and R&D then Apple gets screwed. Even a CEO of the decade would have trouble dealling with to many demands from the markets.
Dave
I read all the posts in this thread, and like yours the best.
It is really hard to maintain creativity over a length of time in a corporation. Hubris sets in after great success. Hopefully, in Apple's case, their focus on good design and great products rather than the bottom line will help. Market cap is not really a good measure for a tech company IMO.
Staying debt-free helps to reduce financial pressure. If Apple can manage to stay focused, and not spread themselves out too thin, they will be OK. It's great that they managed to transform Mac OS X into the iPhone OS with a certain amount of portability of new functions between the platforms.
I believe the worst things Apple could do is to start market researching or trying to meet the demands and expectations of the IT community (I don't mean disrespect here) or fail to depreciate their software and hardware as needed to keep a tight ship. The profits will follow.
Thanks for that, makes sense. It verifies my impression that instead of pushing for structural reforms to the banking system this has turned into (another) merry go round for some financial institutions. Problem is that any government doesn't have enough power to leverage on these guys. They blackmailed everyone to get the hand outs and what with them having politicians pocketed they can do whatever they please with it. That's my view at least, like I said my economics knowledge is very rudimentary to say the least. Problem is this sets things up for another vicious circle...
Let's see?government is bad, so let's de-regulate. Who advocated that? Those who believe the free market is self correcting. Right?
Amazing how minors are always right in their own eyes...
Amazing how the majority always seeks to bully and poke fun at the minority - superiority complex? That's why I always like being in the minority, in this particular instance it puts me above the likes of you.
"Always drink upstream of the herd."
Let's not forget the latest . . .
http://blog.telephonyonline.com/unfi...handset-maker/
It always amazes me that people that buy Apple products are so happy that Apple makes so much profit from them. It defies logic. I still say that Apple should just put a "Donations" button on their website so these people could just give them money. Why make them go through the trouble of actually buying something.
It always amazes me that people that buy Apple products are so happy that Apple makes so much profit from them. It defies logic.
That in itself would defy logic, but shareholders are happy when the companies they invest in do well.
That in itself would defy logic, but shareholders are happy when the companies they invest in do well.
Right- just ask ENRON and AOL shoreholders from the past.
I enjoyed your off topic digression. Do you think that aapl will have issues with the saturation of the computer market too in the neare future? I mean how many more people need to buy a computer? And what more incentives can you give to people for buying a new computer since for the vast majority since the c2d from intel and what with the vast hd capacities are pretty much covered (by far), whilst a few years back you would always expect some tangible perfomance bump. How can you convince most people that 8 gb in ram isn't enough so they should get the 12 gb new model, when a few years back these numbers concerned hds!! Of course branching out with a tablet, and bringing a media center to the table possibly, plus the iphone platform where there's still room for improvement and hence incentive to buy will not only sustain apple but will have more and more of a halo effect in mac sales.
Of course no one has thus far adressed how much the recent price rise has been a product of stock manipulation. And I think it has.
Anyway, I have some money on the side and I d love to invest in apple stock. But I am a novice in investment and I wouldn't want to lose my money...Anyone suggest that I BUY?
My two main concerns are Steve's health and the financial crisis, the latter because it seems the us and the world has not and isn't prepare to bring about the structural changes in the business sector that would prevent a future melt down. We bailed the bankers out but they still have the power to blackmail for that money without compromising to downsize and break up where needed or to keep to increase their capital wrt the speculation. Of course there's the issue of what to do, if you make them keep more capital you are safeguarding against another serious crisis, but you are also depriving the economy of that money for growth. Of course speculation (which was what this guys were doing) is not growth...anyway I veered off topic, and in an area I have very rudimentary knowledge of.
PCs are slowly becoming dummy terminals, a.k.a. TV sets of the 21st century. (How much memory/processor speed/hard drive space do you need in order to run applications remotely via a web browser.) Until most applications become remote (nothing to install on the client), hardware manufacturers (including Apple) will continue to milk as much profit as possible. In the future, software companies will charge subscription rates or "rent" for software, similar to "pay per view" with cable TV.
.
It always amazes me that people that buy Apple products are so happy that Apple makes so much profit from them. It defies logic. I still say that Apple should just put a "Donations" button on their website so these people could just give them money. Why make them go through the trouble of actually buying something.
We're enthusiastic about Apple's prodcuts, something the average PC user has no notion of, for obvious reasons. Admiring the company for what it does is not a big step, and is quite refershing, given incalculable corporate incompetence and the bland, derivative products that surround us.
Makes no difference at all. Splits don't attract new investors like they did in the old days when trading odd lots of shares cost more than multiples of 100, or when a $1,000 was a lot of money.
Thanks for the feedback - that makes sense.
That said, is there any psychological benefit in splitting to keep the individual share price down? What I mean is, do you think an individual investor would prefer to have 25 x $10 shares vs. 1 x $250 share? I can see that institutional investors won't care about such things, but I could imagine for individual traders it might, and hence demand could be spurred?
HAHA> how can you see in your rear view mirror when you're 90% vs 10% ahead - I ask you? pure fanboyism.
But on a more serious note:
http://earthlink.com.com/8301-13506_...part=earthlink
The article was comparing the companies' market value (market cap) not their pc market share.
A bit off topic, but the rejection of that iPhone app is something we should be concerned about.
Thanks for the feedback - that makes sense.
That said, is there any psychological benefit in splitting to keep the individual share price down? What I mean is, do you think an individual investor would prefer to have 25 x $10 shares vs. 1 x $250 share? I can see that institutional investors won't care about such things, but I could imagine for individual traders it might, and hence demand could be spurred?
Maybe some people think that way, but if they do, they should probably be storing their cash in a pillowcase.
Amazing how the majority always seeks to bully and poke fun at the minority - superiority complex? That's why I always like being in the minority, in this particular instance it puts me above the likes of you.
"Always drink upstream of the herd."
I guess that is how it looks like from minorities' point of view... not unlike teens complaining at their parents bullying them with all the rules and prohibitions. Which, usually, has nothing to do with reality
Really... I'm finding Apple-only users, on average, much more aggressive and with much more inflated superiority/elitist complex. Don't you..?
No I understand the whole "premium ", Lexus, BMW analogy or what have you. But why must we contantly compare them then if they are so different in their goals. Why are Apple fans so stuck in this "vengeance is mine" mindset with MS and it's profits and its share. It's so ridiculous!!!!!!
Because even companies with different foci occupy the same market and overlap certain niches so that market share and the ability to scale production and distribution is important.
Ruth's Chris doesn't have to always worry about McDonalds but they are both restaurants and you can get an angus burger at McD's and a hamburger at Ruth's Chris and that overlap does matter.
Also third parties look at this stuff very carefully when they support companies. The difference between 8% and 12% of the market or 20% and 40% of revenue make Macs not just viable but accelerating.
HAHA> how can you see in your rear view mirror when you're 90% vs 10% ahead - I ask you? pure fanboyism.
But on a more serious note:
http://earthlink.com.com/8301-13506_...part=earthlink
Amazing how the majority always seeks to bully and poke fun at the minority - superiority complex? That's why I always like being in the minority, in this particular instance it puts me above the likes of you.
"Always drink upstream of the herd."
Only problem in the case the herd is drinking kool aid.