Those who keep thinking that AAPL is tanking, speak with your wallet and short AAPL. From the ranting going on, you have a sure-fire bet right in front of you.
I for one am just waiting for the right time to purchase more AAPL.
Apple's stock ALWAYS takes a beating after quarterly reports. The market in general right now is also on a downswing.
Lots of tinfoil hats being worn from what I can tell.
Those who keep thinking that AAPL is tanking, speak with your wallet and short AAPL. From the ranting going on, you have a sure-fire bet right in front of you.
I for one am just waiting for the right time to purchase more AAPL.
Apple's stock ALWAYS takes a beating after quarterly reports. The market in general right now is also on a downswing.
Lots of tinfoil hats being worn from what I can tell.
AAPL is doing exactly what was expected right now... all the technicals were pointing towards a downswing... Jobs medical leave or not. Without the med leave announcement AAPL may have had a quick bounce up but we'd be right back to where we are now... the only difference is that it may have taken an extra day or two.
Those who keep thinking that AAPL is tanking, speak with your wallet and short AAPL. From the ranting going on, you have a sure-fire bet right in front of you.
I for one am just waiting for the right time to purchase more AAPL.
Apple's stock ALWAYS takes a beating after quarterly reports. The market in general right now is also on a downswing.
Lots of tinfoil hats being worn from what I can tell.
I have to disagree. No, it doesn't always take a beating after quarterly reports. It normally depends on what's in the report. In fact AAPL held up well yesterday in the face of a market selloff. Today is another story, and in fact AAPL's performance over the last three months is nothing to write home about. In fact, it has kind of sucked.
The former chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has said he believes that Apple has publicly disclosed enough information about the health of its chief executive, Steve Jobs.
Arthur Leavitt told Bloomberg on Monday that he believes Apple's board of directors has acted appropriately when revealing information about its company's CEO. He also revealed that after leaving the SEC, he was approached about joining Apple's board, but the offer was rescinded because of differences about governance.
"It's easy to criticize the board, but I think the reality is that someone who owns Apple stock has got to be deaf, dumb and blind not to know that Jobs has an illness that can reoccur at any time," Leavitt reportedly said.
He said the announcement on Monday that Jobs will take a medical leave of absence from Apple is sufficient information for investors.
"For the board to opine on what the extent of the illness is right now I don't think is really necessary," he said.
You have been warned! Don't you complain later if Steve Jobs never comes back to Apple or if his cancer treatments prove unsuccessful.
Apple is not for the faint of heart, but hedge funds. Prudent family investors have left this speculative stock moved by constant rumors and speculation to investment professionnals.
You can't put it any better than the former Chief of the SEC:
Quote:
"[...] I think the reality is that someone who owns Apple stock has got to be deaf, dumb and blind not to know that Jobs has an illness that can reoccur at any time," Leavitt reportedly said.
Buyer beware! AppleInsider summarizes what is known for Steve Jobs' condition:
Quote:
The current leave of absence marks the third for Jobs, who had surgery in 2004 to address pancreatic cancer. He also left the company in January of 2009 to receive a liver transplant, and returned in June of that year.
This week it was also revealed that Jobs allegedly traveled to Switzerland during his leave in 2009 for cancer treatment. With all those details of Jobs' history with cancer out in the open, Levitt said he believes investors know the risks.
My mind is made up ... so why do you have a different opinion this time? just askin' ... nothing personal.
Because its one side for many people. When Apple stock jumps and I say its because they are following market trends rather then some stupid news that means nothing they want to say thats BS. But when Apple stock is then then all of a sudden its because the Nasdaq is down.
Not saying your the one that does that.
I have no real issue with the stock being down right now, I have over 20 years until I plan to retire. However I am feel certain the recent drop has nothing to do with anything else but the SJ news.
That news hit just about every media outlet in the US that day. Being a long time investor I can tell you I don't have anywhere neare the confidence in Cook that I do in Jobs if this situation was to become worse over the next year. There are several even on this forum that have raised the same issue.
Not like we have any control in the situation other then to decide if we want to hold on for the ride or not.
In the Bloomberg article, but omitted from this one:
How do we know that Apple does not have a succession plan?
I would venture a guess that, with high probability, Apple does. For a range of very practical reasons, Apple's board may want to keep that information -- or even its existence -- confidential.
Also, at this point, it seems fairly obvious who the new CEO will be.
Add: I see that anonymouse beat me to it.
More add: According to pp. 41-42 of Apple's recent proxy filing (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External...xUeXBlPTM=&t=1), "....[Apple's] Board .... maintains a comprehensive succession plan throughout the organization."
I have no real issue with the stock being down right now, I have over 20 years until I plan to retire. However I am feel certain the recent drop has nothing to do with anything else but the SJ news.
That news hit just about every media outlet in the US that day. Being a long time investor I can tell you I don't have anywhere neare the confidence in Cook that I do in Jobs if this situation was to become worse over the next year. There are several even on this forum that have raised the same issue
Quite apart from the fact that you're contradicted yourself three times in the two paras above, here's a thought: If Tim Cook is creating confidence issues for you, act like an adult: sell the darn thing, shut up, and move on.
The stock market has little to do with investing. Brokers make money when you sell or buy. It doesn't want people just sitting on the money. So creating market instability is in their best interests. That is why some analysts really hyped up Jobs absence as being a real issue, well others said any sell off would be a great buying opportunity.
Bad news creates panic because people who either have shorted the stock or benefit from the sale of the stock have created the perception that this is an issue. The fear is not based on logic, but is appealing to people's emotion to make quick decisions. Investing shouldn't be about making quick decisions. If you are buying in a sound company, you have to be strong enough to weather temporary ups and downs of the market and take advantage of those situations.
Moreover, stocks like Apple tend to go in trends. After the holiday earnings, there is generally a sell off. People taking profit hoping the stock goes lower to buy in lower. That approach doesn't always work because Apple doesn't always follow that pattern, but it does more times then not.
Further, the general market is weak. When the general market is weak, Apple follows that trend, but might not suffer as great as losses.
As for the two year timeline goes, I can tell you this. Apple plans some product releases many years in advance. I used to know an Apple Intern. He told me about some of Apple's things it was working on. The Mac Mini was one such thing. After six months or so, those things didn't come to market so I doubted him. Over a year later these things did.
Apple doesn't release things to the public like product launch cycles or executive succession plans because that would give competitors an advantage. If the public knew what people Apple wanted to promote, other companies would try to steal those people away. If competitors knew what Apple's product launch cycle was, it would try to beat Apple to market. Apple is too smart not to be well organized in that regard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater
If thats the case why would the stock have been effected at all? So I don't see that as the case. Any bad news about Steve Jobs in any form will cause panic.
The market even more so in the tech sector is rarely based on logic. This week is a perfect example on how perception trumps logic any day of the week.
If people truly believed there were a two year approved plan in place by SJ then the AAPL woud have spiked on earnings, instead they have declined daily.
Unless you feel the stock was over inflated based on either Verizon news or iPad 2 news. Which that I could buy.
If thats the case why would the stock have been effected at all? So I don't see that as the case. Any bad news about Steve Jobs in any form will cause panic.
The market even more so in the tech sector is rarely based on logic. This week is a perfect example on how perception trumps logic any day of the week.
If people truly believed there were a two year approved plan in place by SJ then the AAPL woud have spiked on earnings, instead they have declined daily.
Unless you feel the stock was over inflated based on either Verizon news or iPad 2 news. Which that I could buy.
The market doesn't behave rationally. Traders who should know better think Jobs is personally designing all of the components in each computer. In their heads, the company can't succeed without Jobs. While I personally think that Jobs may be the greatest American CEO of all time, should he not return to Apple, some things may actually get better without him because there is a streak of stubbornness and arrogance that sometimes hurts Apple.
As for the stock, sure it's dropped because of the Steve announcement. It's down about 5% from its peak, but NASDAQ is down 46% from its peak and down 2.23% from its 52 week high.
The stock closed today at 332.68, so that's down about 16 points (5%) from its peak, but its 52 week low is 190.25 and Steve Jobs was there and presumably relatively healthy when it was at 190. So how can anyone complain? It's up 75% from its 52 week low. If it stabilizes or goes up, fine. If it drops another 5%, that's a good buying opportunity and I for one, will be buying more stock. If it drops 25%, I'll be buying tons of Apple stock.
The only way Apple fails is if Jobs decides not to return, the Board goes outside for a CEO and they bring in some corporate-type ass or someone who has Steve's arrogance and ego, but not his vision and smarts.
The stock only lost less then two percent on the news. On great earnings Apple made all that back and then some the following day. The general market, however, went sour and Apple is going down with it.
Bottom line: investing is about picking good companies and holding. Trading is something different. If you are not comfortable about the stock, the solution is to sell. The reality is Steve Jobs had a very serious type of cancer. One's average survival rate after treatment is just a few years (less then five). Let us hope Jobs beats the odds whether or not he stays with Apple. However, anybody who has followed Apple at all knows the day is coming soon when he will have to step down permanently. That day might already be here.
QUOTE=extremeskater;1790543]That news hit just about every media outlet in the US that day. Being a long time investor I can tell you I don't have anywhere neare the confidence in Cook that I do in Jobs if this situation was to become worse over the next year. There are several even on this forum that have raised the same issue.
Not like we have any control in the situation other then to decide if we want to hold on for the ride or not.[/QUOTE]
The law protects patients from having their medical records disclosed by medical professionals to others without their permission. How in the world could it be relevant, if only because NOBODY is arguing that ANY medical records must be disclosed. The phony HIPAA argument comes up all the time, as though it answers the question about how much information should be volunteered by Steve and the board. It's not relevant to the question, not in the least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by delreyjones
... I'd also like him to be completely invulnerable to cancer; immortal!
That might be asking for too much. I'd settle for super powers. I mean, that is what we're used to already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
How do we know that Apple does not have a succession plan?
I would venture a guess that, with high probability, Apple does. For a range of very practical reasons, Apple's board may want to keep that information -- or even its existence -- confidential.
Also, at this point, it seems fairly obvious who the new CEO will be.
Add: I see that anonymouse beat me to it.
More add: According to pp. 41-42 of Apple's recent proxy filing (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External...xUeXBlPTM=&t=1), "....[Apple's] Board .... maintains a comprehensive succession plan throughout the organization."
We don't know either way. Probably something is going on, and I think the posted article does a good job of describing how much Apple would need to disclose about it to settle the question. Apple's argument that they can't say a single word more than nothing without competitive consequences doesn't seem to hold water, and probably won't stand up.
The stock only lost less then two percent on the news. On great earnings Apple made all that back and then some the following day. The general market, however, went sour and Apple is going down with it.
AAPL is down 4.5% since the news. The NASDAQ is down about 1.7% during the same period.
The law protects patients from having their medical records disclosed by medical professionals to others without their permission. How in the world could it be relevant, if only because NOBODY is arguing that ANY medical records must be disclosed. The phony HIPAA argument comes up all the time, as though it answers the question about how much information should be volunteered by Steve and the board. It's not relevant to the question, not in the least.
If NOBODY is arguing ANY medical information needs to be revealed why is there a question about how much information should be revealed by Steve and the board?
HIPPA doesn't provide legal guidance in this situation but it can certainly help inform the discussion on providing medical information in this type of a situation.
Any bad news about Steve Jobs in any form will cause panic.
At this point I think most people are assuming Steve won't be back (but hoping they're wrong!). And there has been no panic.
As Horace Dediu at asymco.com has pointed out, Apple's P/E premium dropped in half, back to the average for the stock market, around when Steve Jobs looked sick at his January keynote in 2008, and it remains at that level. The lack of panic on Tuesday is additional evidence that the expectation that AAPL can't count on having Steve much longer has been baked into the stock price for the past three years.
If NOBODY is arguing ANY medical information needs to be revealed why is there a question about how much information should be revealed by Steve and the board?
HIPPA doesn't provide legal guidance in this situation but it can certainly help inform the discussion on providing medical information in this type of a situation.
It is relevant.
It doesn't inform anything. In fact bringing it up misinforms, since it sounds so official, but doesn't apply to this situation in any imaginable way. Show me who is demanding access to any medical records, for instance. Nobody, right? So forget HIPAA, it's nothing more than a red herring argument.
Comments
I for one am just waiting for the right time to purchase more AAPL.
Apple's stock ALWAYS takes a beating after quarterly reports. The market in general right now is also on a downswing.
Lots of tinfoil hats being worn from what I can tell.
Those who keep thinking that AAPL is tanking, speak with your wallet and short AAPL. From the ranting going on, you have a sure-fire bet right in front of you.
I for one am just waiting for the right time to purchase more AAPL.
Apple's stock ALWAYS takes a beating after quarterly reports. The market in general right now is also on a downswing.
Lots of tinfoil hats being worn from what I can tell.
AAPL is doing exactly what was expected right now... all the technicals were pointing towards a downswing... Jobs medical leave or not. Without the med leave announcement AAPL may have had a quick bounce up but we'd be right back to where we are now... the only difference is that it may have taken an extra day or two.
mo
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa...ing/index.html
Those who keep thinking that AAPL is tanking, speak with your wallet and short AAPL. From the ranting going on, you have a sure-fire bet right in front of you.
I for one am just waiting for the right time to purchase more AAPL.
Apple's stock ALWAYS takes a beating after quarterly reports. The market in general right now is also on a downswing.
Lots of tinfoil hats being worn from what I can tell.
I have to disagree. No, it doesn't always take a beating after quarterly reports. It normally depends on what's in the report. In fact AAPL held up well yesterday in the face of a market selloff. Today is another story, and in fact AAPL's performance over the last three months is nothing to write home about. In fact, it has kind of sucked.
Even Steve Jobs has HIPAA privacy rights:
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa...ing/index.html
You beat me to it.
You beat me to it.
It's completely irrelevant.
The former chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has said he believes that Apple has publicly disclosed enough information about the health of its chief executive, Steve Jobs.
Arthur Leavitt told Bloomberg on Monday that he believes Apple's board of directors has acted appropriately when revealing information about its company's CEO. He also revealed that after leaving the SEC, he was approached about joining Apple's board, but the offer was rescinded because of differences about governance.
"It's easy to criticize the board, but I think the reality is that someone who owns Apple stock has got to be deaf, dumb and blind not to know that Jobs has an illness that can reoccur at any time," Leavitt reportedly said.
He said the announcement on Monday that Jobs will take a medical leave of absence from Apple is sufficient information for investors.
"For the board to opine on what the extent of the illness is right now I don't think is really necessary," he said.
You have been warned! Don't you complain later if Steve Jobs never comes back to Apple or if his cancer treatments prove unsuccessful.
Apple is not for the faint of heart, but hedge funds. Prudent family investors have left this speculative stock moved by constant rumors and speculation to investment professionnals.
You can't put it any better than the former Chief of the SEC:
"[...] I think the reality is that someone who owns Apple stock has got to be deaf, dumb and blind not to know that Jobs has an illness that can reoccur at any time," Leavitt reportedly said.
Buyer beware! AppleInsider summarizes what is known for Steve Jobs' condition:
The current leave of absence marks the third for Jobs, who had surgery in 2004 to address pancreatic cancer. He also left the company in January of 2009 to receive a liver transplant, and returned in June of that year.
This week it was also revealed that Jobs allegedly traveled to Switzerland during his leave in 2009 for cancer treatment. With all those details of Jobs' history with cancer out in the open, Levitt said he believes investors know the risks.
My mind is made up ... so why do you have a different opinion this time? just askin' ... nothing personal.
Because its one side for many people. When Apple stock jumps and I say its because they are following market trends rather then some stupid news that means nothing they want to say thats BS. But when Apple stock is then then all of a sudden its because the Nasdaq is down.
Not saying your the one that does that.
I have no real issue with the stock being down right now, I have over 20 years until I plan to retire. However I am feel certain the recent drop has nothing to do with anything else but the SJ news.
That news hit just about every media outlet in the US that day. Being a long time investor I can tell you I don't have anywhere neare the confidence in Cook that I do in Jobs if this situation was to become worse over the next year. There are several even on this forum that have raised the same issue.
Not like we have any control in the situation other then to decide if we want to hold on for the ride or not.
It's completely irrelevant.
How so?
Applicant must supply own RDF.
... I'd also like him to be completely invulnerable to cancer; immortal!
In the Bloomberg article, but omitted from this one:
How do we know that Apple does not have a succession plan?
I would venture a guess that, with high probability, Apple does. For a range of very practical reasons, Apple's board may want to keep that information -- or even its existence -- confidential.
Also, at this point, it seems fairly obvious who the new CEO will be.
Add: I see that anonymouse beat me to it.
More add: According to pp. 41-42 of Apple's recent proxy filing (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External...xUeXBlPTM=&t=1), "....[Apple's] Board .... maintains a comprehensive succession plan throughout the organization."
I have no real issue with the stock being down right now, I have over 20 years until I plan to retire. However I am feel certain the recent drop has nothing to do with anything else but the SJ news.
That news hit just about every media outlet in the US that day. Being a long time investor I can tell you I don't have anywhere neare the confidence in Cook that I do in Jobs if this situation was to become worse over the next year. There are several even on this forum that have raised the same issue
Quite apart from the fact that you're contradicted yourself three times in the two paras above, here's a thought: If Tim Cook is creating confidence issues for you, act like an adult: sell the darn thing, shut up, and move on.
Bad news creates panic because people who either have shorted the stock or benefit from the sale of the stock have created the perception that this is an issue. The fear is not based on logic, but is appealing to people's emotion to make quick decisions. Investing shouldn't be about making quick decisions. If you are buying in a sound company, you have to be strong enough to weather temporary ups and downs of the market and take advantage of those situations.
Moreover, stocks like Apple tend to go in trends. After the holiday earnings, there is generally a sell off. People taking profit hoping the stock goes lower to buy in lower. That approach doesn't always work because Apple doesn't always follow that pattern, but it does more times then not.
Further, the general market is weak. When the general market is weak, Apple follows that trend, but might not suffer as great as losses.
As for the two year timeline goes, I can tell you this. Apple plans some product releases many years in advance. I used to know an Apple Intern. He told me about some of Apple's things it was working on. The Mac Mini was one such thing. After six months or so, those things didn't come to market so I doubted him. Over a year later these things did.
Apple doesn't release things to the public like product launch cycles or executive succession plans because that would give competitors an advantage. If the public knew what people Apple wanted to promote, other companies would try to steal those people away. If competitors knew what Apple's product launch cycle was, it would try to beat Apple to market. Apple is too smart not to be well organized in that regard.
If thats the case why would the stock have been effected at all? So I don't see that as the case. Any bad news about Steve Jobs in any form will cause panic.
The market even more so in the tech sector is rarely based on logic. This week is a perfect example on how perception trumps logic any day of the week.
If people truly believed there were a two year approved plan in place by SJ then the AAPL woud have spiked on earnings, instead they have declined daily.
Unless you feel the stock was over inflated based on either Verizon news or iPad 2 news. Which that I could buy.
If thats the case why would the stock have been effected at all? So I don't see that as the case. Any bad news about Steve Jobs in any form will cause panic.
The market even more so in the tech sector is rarely based on logic. This week is a perfect example on how perception trumps logic any day of the week.
If people truly believed there were a two year approved plan in place by SJ then the AAPL woud have spiked on earnings, instead they have declined daily.
Unless you feel the stock was over inflated based on either Verizon news or iPad 2 news. Which that I could buy.
The market doesn't behave rationally. Traders who should know better think Jobs is personally designing all of the components in each computer. In their heads, the company can't succeed without Jobs. While I personally think that Jobs may be the greatest American CEO of all time, should he not return to Apple, some things may actually get better without him because there is a streak of stubbornness and arrogance that sometimes hurts Apple.
As for the stock, sure it's dropped because of the Steve announcement. It's down about 5% from its peak, but NASDAQ is down 46% from its peak and down 2.23% from its 52 week high.
The stock closed today at 332.68, so that's down about 16 points (5%) from its peak, but its 52 week low is 190.25 and Steve Jobs was there and presumably relatively healthy when it was at 190. So how can anyone complain? It's up 75% from its 52 week low. If it stabilizes or goes up, fine. If it drops another 5%, that's a good buying opportunity and I for one, will be buying more stock. If it drops 25%, I'll be buying tons of Apple stock.
The only way Apple fails is if Jobs decides not to return, the Board goes outside for a CEO and they bring in some corporate-type ass or someone who has Steve's arrogance and ego, but not his vision and smarts.
Bottom line: investing is about picking good companies and holding. Trading is something different. If you are not comfortable about the stock, the solution is to sell. The reality is Steve Jobs had a very serious type of cancer. One's average survival rate after treatment is just a few years (less then five). Let us hope Jobs beats the odds whether or not he stays with Apple. However, anybody who has followed Apple at all knows the day is coming soon when he will have to step down permanently. That day might already be here.
QUOTE=extremeskater;1790543]That news hit just about every media outlet in the US that day. Being a long time investor I can tell you I don't have anywhere neare the confidence in Cook that I do in Jobs if this situation was to become worse over the next year. There are several even on this forum that have raised the same issue.
Not like we have any control in the situation other then to decide if we want to hold on for the ride or not.[/QUOTE]
How so?
The law protects patients from having their medical records disclosed by medical professionals to others without their permission. How in the world could it be relevant, if only because NOBODY is arguing that ANY medical records must be disclosed. The phony HIPAA argument comes up all the time, as though it answers the question about how much information should be volunteered by Steve and the board. It's not relevant to the question, not in the least.
... I'd also like him to be completely invulnerable to cancer; immortal!
That might be asking for too much. I'd settle for super powers. I mean, that is what we're used to already.
How do we know that Apple does not have a succession plan?
I would venture a guess that, with high probability, Apple does. For a range of very practical reasons, Apple's board may want to keep that information -- or even its existence -- confidential.
Also, at this point, it seems fairly obvious who the new CEO will be.
Add: I see that anonymouse beat me to it.
More add: According to pp. 41-42 of Apple's recent proxy filing (http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External...xUeXBlPTM=&t=1), "....[Apple's] Board .... maintains a comprehensive succession plan throughout the organization."
We don't know either way. Probably something is going on, and I think the posted article does a good job of describing how much Apple would need to disclose about it to settle the question. Apple's argument that they can't say a single word more than nothing without competitive consequences doesn't seem to hold water, and probably won't stand up.
The stock only lost less then two percent on the news. On great earnings Apple made all that back and then some the following day. The general market, however, went sour and Apple is going down with it.
AAPL is down 4.5% since the news. The NASDAQ is down about 1.7% during the same period.
The law protects patients from having their medical records disclosed by medical professionals to others without their permission. How in the world could it be relevant, if only because NOBODY is arguing that ANY medical records must be disclosed. The phony HIPAA argument comes up all the time, as though it answers the question about how much information should be volunteered by Steve and the board. It's not relevant to the question, not in the least.
If NOBODY is arguing ANY medical information needs to be revealed why is there a question about how much information should be revealed by Steve and the board?
HIPPA doesn't provide legal guidance in this situation but it can certainly help inform the discussion on providing medical information in this type of a situation.
It is relevant.
Any bad news about Steve Jobs in any form will cause panic.
At this point I think most people are assuming Steve won't be back (but hoping they're wrong!). And there has been no panic.
As Horace Dediu at asymco.com has pointed out, Apple's P/E premium dropped in half, back to the average for the stock market, around when Steve Jobs looked sick at his January keynote in 2008, and it remains at that level. The lack of panic on Tuesday is additional evidence that the expectation that AAPL can't count on having Steve much longer has been baked into the stock price for the past three years.
If NOBODY is arguing ANY medical information needs to be revealed why is there a question about how much information should be revealed by Steve and the board?
HIPPA doesn't provide legal guidance in this situation but it can certainly help inform the discussion on providing medical information in this type of a situation.
It is relevant.
It doesn't inform anything. In fact bringing it up misinforms, since it sounds so official, but doesn't apply to this situation in any imaginable way. Show me who is demanding access to any medical records, for instance. Nobody, right? So forget HIPAA, it's nothing more than a red herring argument.