I'm not an investor but knowing that Apple doesn't pay dividends like many other large companies, it means the only way you make money is buy selling your shares again. Which means Apple don't actually make the market any money at all, as its just selling ownership back and forth.
I think most people feel we are in an Apple bubble, and they are waiting for it to burst. Apple has been going steady for 10 years. The .com bubble pretty much ended in 10 years. People kind of sort of want Apple to fall soon, rather than letting it grow extremely high. Nothing last forever, but it can last a REALLLY LLOOOOONGG TIME.
1. Any investor worth their salt knows that it's the value of the stock that matters, not price. And if you look at the ownership of most stocks, the majority is made up of institutional investors.
2. This doesn't make any sense. Capitalization is the stock price multiplied by number of shares outstanding. I don't understand where you're going with number 2.
3. That's utter BS. Apple is not a one-trick pony. In their product portfolio, they have Macs, iPads, iPhones, and iPods. They also sell software. How does that make Apple a "one-trick pony?" Apple is not a one-trick pony.
1. While they may be held by institutional investors, it's the ones buying and selling that set the price and the P/E ratio.
2. Exactly and if the stock goes up by 50% the capitalization increases by 50%. Now it would be half again as big as the next biggest company.
3. Impressions can be important, the current impression (right or not) is that Apple is only as good as its last product. Where would it be if the iphone or the ipad had failed?
Consider Samsung, it might not be an exciting company, but it makes everything from from ships to the kitchen sink. If one product fails it's only a blip on their earnings.
During crisis time, you lose money on Stock Exchange, and in order to compensate for this you sell stable stock share which are still very valuable.
Thanks for the translation. I would like to add that the significance of this is that it is one factor keeping the price of AAPL depressed recently. That is, institutions are selling AAPL to compensate for losses in other stocks, in order to make the quarterly statements of their clients look acceptable.
is he really putting his money where his mouth is? or is he trying to shore up his position? (and "logistics"? no.)
but no-one truly knows, do they? unless they have complete information on zaky's holdings, including dates, volumes, and prices. was he compensated for this piece? how much and by whom?
pony up, zaky.
And that matters, in an article stating facts and incredibly logical speak, how? That's a rhetorical question, btw.
Were you dropped on your head much, or are you just a grumpy E-cynic who resorts to the lowest common denominator of argument, ignoring intelligence and logic completely, thus rendering your opinion/contribution worthless?
..... Rhetorical question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy Prasad
Unfortunately, Apple, the company itself, is doing nothing to help out the shareholders. Steve Jobs never cared for Wall Street, and disdained people who were in it for the money. However, that approach is inappropriate today, given Apple's market cap.
A key part of being a public company involves at least an effort on the part of the company to make existing shareholders comfortable with the company, and attract new investors. Part of the job function for Tim Cook is to build up the price of the stock. I am not proposing hyping up the stock price, but the company has to at least let the stock price rise above its deeply depressed levels.
That means being a little more visible to the investment community, providing a little more upbeat vision for the company, placing a put under the market by announcing a share buy back, periodically splitting the stock, and spending money on a few PR programs to build a little buzz about the stock. Surely, Apple needs no education on building a little buzz.
.
Well said, and very true. However, it really is a very fine line, as Apple has to be careful about not "becoming just another company". "Think Different" is a marketing-trademark term you'd think now, but it genuinely applies to how Apple got to where they're at, and how they do business today. Investors will be the first to jump on them if they lose that vision, yet at the same time, investors would like them to play Wall Street Games for the short term boost.
On a day like today, AMZN's bloated Stock outperformed the Market, because Amazon gloated about how well their Kindle is doing. AAPL performed about par with the Market, because Apple refuses to tell anybody anything ("You don't need to know, our performance speaks for itself, and you'll find out during the Earnings Report").
Apple has so many tools they can use to drive AAPL up, and even things not as "drastic" as splits, buybacks, etc. Simply acknowledging, simply showing some confidence (imagine if they showed arrogance! Wall Street would love that!), stating some "We did much better than even we expected", simply refuted claims that iPad shipments were cut, simply stating that iPads are "Selling like crazy", etc. etc. Games games, that would drive the Stock up.
I would like to see them play along a little bit, but not completely give in, as Wall Street can be like a gang, once you're jumped in, you're stuck.
It is a bizarre fact that low-priced stocks tend to do better than high priced stocks. No one knows why - it is possible this is because low-priced stocks are statistically undervalued when they are low. But there may be another reason. If I am an individual I might feel I am getting a better deal in buying 100 shares of Apple at 20 dollars, rather than 6 shares at $333 dollars. (Are there any experimental economists in the room to test this?).
So I would argue that part of the blame should go to the Apple board, who should SPLIT THE STOCK ALREADY!
It is a bizarre fact that low-priced stocks tend to do better than high priced stocks. No one knows why - it is possible this is because low-priced stocks are statistically undervalued when they are low. But there may be another reason. If I am an individual I might feel I am getting a better deal in buying 100 shares of Apple at 20 dollars, rather than 6 shares at $333 dollars. (Are there any experimental economists in the room to test this?).
So I would argue that part of the blame should go to the Apple board, who should SPLIT THE STOCK ALREADY!
Yeah, it's obviously psychological, but it's the way it is.
My theory as to why AMZN is so overvalued and bloated is because investors who want to get into "Sexy Tech Stocks" look to a group of household names: Apple, Google, Amazon, etc. Amazon is a recognizable, solid, reputable company, like the others, and while not as "sexy", it does the job, and is priced much less than the far more undervalued Stocks mentioned. Therefore, people flock To AMZN as they can get 100 Shares at around $20K, while 100 shares of Apple hover around $40K.
AAPL needs a split, badly. We can talk about logical reasons as to why it doesn't matter, but fact is, the Market is illogical in many ways, Everyday-Joe Investors are illogical in many ways, and a high number is much more commanding and noticeable than a low P/E (many Investors don't even know what a P/E is, hence AMZN's price). People see a high number, they see tons of room to go down, forgoing most rationale.
With AAPL at $40, people running on emotion (most all Investors) will see it as a great bargain, and I can see the price getting driven up drastically. I for one would probably stock up on a lot more Shares if the price went down. At this current rate, I'm buying 10 Shares every time the price drops about $10 or so, however, for a measly 10 shares you're looking at almost $4K. To most Investors, it's too small a chunk of the company.
I think most people feel we are in an Apple bubble, and they are waiting for it to burst. Apple has been going steady for 10 years. The .com bubble pretty much ended in 10 years. People kind of sort of want Apple to fall soon, rather than letting it grow extremely high. Nothing last forever, but it can last a REALLLY LLOOOOONGG TIME.
Talk to me after you can back up your assertions with some hard evidence. At this time, you have none.
Talk to me after you can back up your assertions with some hard evidence. At this time, you have none.
If you are goin to do this, then you need to ask this from every poster in this thread. That was my opinion, and it doesn't require evidence. Facts does.
Also, I wasn't talking to you. I was just posting.
1. Any investor worth their salt knows that it's the value of the stock that matters, not price. And if you look at the ownership of most stocks, the majority is made up of institutional investors.
2. This doesn't make any sense. Capitalization is the stock price multiplied by number of shares outstanding. I don't understand where you're going with number 2.
3. That's utter BS. Apple is not a one-trick pony. In their product portfolio, they have Macs, iPads, iPhones, and iPods. They also sell software. How does that make Apple a "one-trick pony?" Apple is not a one-trick pony.
I don't see any reliable sources in which you linked too.
It is a bizarre fact that low-priced stocks tend to do better than high priced stocks. No one knows why - it is possible this is because low-priced stocks are statistically undervalued when they are low. But there may be another reason. If I am an individual I might feel I am getting a better deal in buying 100 shares of Apple at 20 dollars, rather than 6 shares at $333 dollars. (Are there any experimental economists in the room to test this?).
So I would argue that part of the blame should go to the Apple board, who should SPLIT THE STOCK ALREADY!
Amazing deduction! You should write a dissertation on your amazing theories!
In the words of Warren Buffett, "Price is what you pay. Value is what you get." You have not made one mention of what you think Apple is worth. Figure out what you think Apple is worth and compare that to the price you'd have to pay to buy Apple stock.
Possibly the eye roller should read the whole article. As most financial articles, its stock standing comes at the end of the article.
Quoted from end of article: Andy M. Zaky is a fund manager at Bullish Cross Capital, an Appleinsider contributor and runs the financial newsletter, Bullish Cross. Bullish Cross Capital owns Apple as a major holding in the portfolio
Well now I just feel silly. Disclaimers usually come at the front of any article however...
"Andy M. Zaky is a fund manager at Bullish Cross Capital, an Appleinsider contributor and runs the financial newsletter, Bullish Cross. Bullish Cross Capital owns Apple as a major holding in the portfolio."
Talk about pumping up a stock you own.
While I do agree and I do own stock in apple, I think investors see all the incredible (unbelievable) profits apple has made and think they can not sustain this growth. I think they are wrong but buying stock is all about the future and if you don't think a company will continue to grow at this pace, you will not want the stock.
"Andy M. Zaky is a fund manager at Bullish Cross Capital, an Appleinsider contributor and runs the financial newsletter, Bullish Cross. Bullish Cross Capital owns Apple as a major holding in the portfolio."
Talk about pumping up a stock you own.
Wrong. If you'd bother to read AZ's contributions over the years, you would know about the times he's recommended holding, selling, crossing or staying out altogether. Within the timeframe of his writing an article, he calls AAPL as he sees it. He'll be the first to tell you that he couldn't pump or dump except as he brings true perspectives to a less-than-rational market. If people buy into the facts he brings out, so much the better for transparency. Take, for instance, the belated recognition of the deferred subscription issue a couple years ago by the Wall Street community. It only came about after Andy repeatedly berated them for their flawed financial analysis that brought about an almost-criminal undervaluation by the analyst herd. Finally they wised up and Andy was no longer the prophet preaching in a wilderness of stupidity. In sum, Andy could no more pump AAPL than you could be knowing what you're talking about.
That is pretty humorous. No financial justification, no reasoned projections, just "sell because we think it's too high".
The reasons they gave are silly:
- Jobs' death? Already factored in to the stock price. Not that it's likely to matter - Jobs built an Apple that's fully capable of surviving without him.
- Apple products are expensive and won't do when in a poor economy. So what? Is this new? Is the economy suddenly going to get worse than it was for the last 3 years?
- Market is saturated? Then why is this quarter widely expected to be Apple's best quarter ever? And even if it were true, after adjusting for cash on hand, Apple's trading at 8 times earnings - which is far too low even if it doesn't grow.
- Apple is the largest US corporation so it can't grow. This one just doesn't make sense. So if Apple's sales quadruple and profits go up by 10,000 %, the share price can't go any higher? Do these people even THINK about what they say?
- "I don't see any groundbreaking products coming out". Maybe no one explained to him that Apple's secrecy is largely unprecedented. They're not going to tell him in advance. And if he had the creativity and drive to imagine groundbreaking products, he wouldn't be a paid MSN shill. Furthermore, even if he were correct, Apple's share price is too low, even based on existing products.
The really amazing thing is that apparently some people are so easily deluded that they fall for stuff like this.
Comments
I'm not an investor but knowing that Apple doesn't pay dividends like many other large companies, it means the only way you make money is buy selling your shares again. Which means Apple don't actually make the market any money at all, as its just selling ownership back and forth.
1. Any investor worth their salt knows that it's the value of the stock that matters, not price. And if you look at the ownership of most stocks, the majority is made up of institutional investors.
2. This doesn't make any sense. Capitalization is the stock price multiplied by number of shares outstanding. I don't understand where you're going with number 2.
3. That's utter BS. Apple is not a one-trick pony. In their product portfolio, they have Macs, iPads, iPhones, and iPods. They also sell software. How does that make Apple a "one-trick pony?" Apple is not a one-trick pony.
1. While they may be held by institutional investors, it's the ones buying and selling that set the price and the P/E ratio.
2. Exactly and if the stock goes up by 50% the capitalization increases by 50%. Now it would be half again as big as the next biggest company.
3. Impressions can be important, the current impression (right or not) is that Apple is only as good as its last product. Where would it be if the iphone or the ipad had failed?
Consider Samsung, it might not be an exciting company, but it makes everything from from ships to the kitchen sink. If one product fails it's only a blip on their earnings.
During crisis time, you lose money on Stock Exchange, and in order to compensate for this you sell stable stock share which are still very valuable.
Thanks for the translation. I would like to add that the significance of this is that it is one factor keeping the price of AAPL depressed recently. That is, institutions are selling AAPL to compensate for losses in other stocks, in order to make the quarterly statements of their clients look acceptable.
is he really putting his money where his mouth is? or is he trying to shore up his position? (and "logistics"? no.)
but no-one truly knows, do they? unless they have complete information on zaky's holdings, including dates, volumes, and prices. was he compensated for this piece? how much and by whom?
pony up, zaky.
And that matters, in an article stating facts and incredibly logical speak, how? That's a rhetorical question, btw.
Were you dropped on your head much, or are you just a grumpy E-cynic who resorts to the lowest common denominator of argument, ignoring intelligence and logic completely, thus rendering your opinion/contribution worthless?
..... Rhetorical question.
Unfortunately, Apple, the company itself, is doing nothing to help out the shareholders. Steve Jobs never cared for Wall Street, and disdained people who were in it for the money. However, that approach is inappropriate today, given Apple's market cap.
A key part of being a public company involves at least an effort on the part of the company to make existing shareholders comfortable with the company, and attract new investors. Part of the job function for Tim Cook is to build up the price of the stock. I am not proposing hyping up the stock price, but the company has to at least let the stock price rise above its deeply depressed levels.
That means being a little more visible to the investment community, providing a little more upbeat vision for the company, placing a put under the market by announcing a share buy back, periodically splitting the stock, and spending money on a few PR programs to build a little buzz about the stock. Surely, Apple needs no education on building a little buzz.
.
Well said, and very true. However, it really is a very fine line, as Apple has to be careful about not "becoming just another company". "Think Different" is a marketing-trademark term you'd think now, but it genuinely applies to how Apple got to where they're at, and how they do business today. Investors will be the first to jump on them if they lose that vision, yet at the same time, investors would like them to play Wall Street Games for the short term boost.
On a day like today, AMZN's bloated Stock outperformed the Market, because Amazon gloated about how well their Kindle is doing. AAPL performed about par with the Market, because Apple refuses to tell anybody anything ("You don't need to know, our performance speaks for itself, and you'll find out during the Earnings Report").
Apple has so many tools they can use to drive AAPL up, and even things not as "drastic" as splits, buybacks, etc. Simply acknowledging, simply showing some confidence (imagine if they showed arrogance! Wall Street would love that!), stating some "We did much better than even we expected", simply refuted claims that iPad shipments were cut, simply stating that iPads are "Selling like crazy", etc. etc. Games games, that would drive the Stock up.
I would like to see them play along a little bit, but not completely give in, as Wall Street can be like a gang, once you're jumped in, you're stuck.
Nobody paid him for this opinion piece.
how do you know this?
So I would argue that part of the blame should go to the Apple board, who should SPLIT THE STOCK ALREADY!
It is a bizarre fact that low-priced stocks tend to do better than high priced stocks. No one knows why - it is possible this is because low-priced stocks are statistically undervalued when they are low. But there may be another reason. If I am an individual I might feel I am getting a better deal in buying 100 shares of Apple at 20 dollars, rather than 6 shares at $333 dollars. (Are there any experimental economists in the room to test this?).
So I would argue that part of the blame should go to the Apple board, who should SPLIT THE STOCK ALREADY!
Yeah, it's obviously psychological, but it's the way it is.
My theory as to why AMZN is so overvalued and bloated is because investors who want to get into "Sexy Tech Stocks" look to a group of household names: Apple, Google, Amazon, etc. Amazon is a recognizable, solid, reputable company, like the others, and while not as "sexy", it does the job, and is priced much less than the far more undervalued Stocks mentioned. Therefore, people flock To AMZN as they can get 100 Shares at around $20K, while 100 shares of Apple hover around $40K.
AAPL needs a split, badly. We can talk about logical reasons as to why it doesn't matter, but fact is, the Market is illogical in many ways, Everyday-Joe Investors are illogical in many ways, and a high number is much more commanding and noticeable than a low P/E (many Investors don't even know what a P/E is, hence AMZN's price). People see a high number, they see tons of room to go down, forgoing most rationale.
With AAPL at $40, people running on emotion (most all Investors) will see it as a great bargain, and I can see the price getting driven up drastically. I for one would probably stock up on a lot more Shares if the price went down. At this current rate, I'm buying 10 Shares every time the price drops about $10 or so, however, for a measly 10 shares you're looking at almost $4K. To most Investors, it's too small a chunk of the company.
I think most people feel we are in an Apple bubble, and they are waiting for it to burst. Apple has been going steady for 10 years. The .com bubble pretty much ended in 10 years. People kind of sort of want Apple to fall soon, rather than letting it grow extremely high. Nothing last forever, but it can last a REALLLY LLOOOOONGG TIME.
Talk to me after you can back up your assertions with some hard evidence. At this time, you have none.
Talk to me after you can back up your assertions with some hard evidence. At this time, you have none.
If you are goin to do this, then you need to ask this from every poster in this thread. That was my opinion, and it doesn't require evidence. Facts does.
Also, I wasn't talking to you. I was just posting.
1. Any investor worth their salt knows that it's the value of the stock that matters, not price. And if you look at the ownership of most stocks, the majority is made up of institutional investors.
2. This doesn't make any sense. Capitalization is the stock price multiplied by number of shares outstanding. I don't understand where you're going with number 2.
3. That's utter BS. Apple is not a one-trick pony. In their product portfolio, they have Macs, iPads, iPhones, and iPods. They also sell software. How does that make Apple a "one-trick pony?" Apple is not a one-trick pony.
I don't see any reliable sources in which you linked too.
It is a bizarre fact that low-priced stocks tend to do better than high priced stocks. No one knows why - it is possible this is because low-priced stocks are statistically undervalued when they are low. But there may be another reason. If I am an individual I might feel I am getting a better deal in buying 100 shares of Apple at 20 dollars, rather than 6 shares at $333 dollars. (Are there any experimental economists in the room to test this?).
So I would argue that part of the blame should go to the Apple board, who should SPLIT THE STOCK ALREADY!
Amazing deduction! You should write a dissertation on your amazing theories!
In the words of Warren Buffett, "Price is what you pay. Value is what you get." You have not made one mention of what you think Apple is worth. Figure out what you think Apple is worth and compare that to the price you'd have to pay to buy Apple stock.
Possibly the eye roller should read the whole article. As most financial articles, its stock standing comes at the end of the article.
Quoted from end of article: Andy M. Zaky is a fund manager at Bullish Cross Capital, an Appleinsider contributor and runs the financial newsletter, Bullish Cross. Bullish Cross Capital owns Apple as a major holding in the portfolio
Well now I just feel silly. Disclaimers usually come at the front of any article however...
Well now I just feel silly. Disclaimers usually come at the front of any article however...
They do? Since when?
Disclaimers on stock ownership almost always appear at the end of the article.
Talk about pumping up a stock you own.
While I do agree and I do own stock in apple, I think investors see all the incredible (unbelievable) profits apple has made and think they can not sustain this growth. I think they are wrong but buying stock is all about the future and if you don't think a company will continue to grow at this pace, you will not want the stock.
http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post...7-fa5b23de9299
They do? Since when?
Disclaimers on stock ownership almost always appear at the end of the article.
If you say so
"Andy M. Zaky is a fund manager at Bullish Cross Capital, an Appleinsider contributor and runs the financial newsletter, Bullish Cross. Bullish Cross Capital owns Apple as a major holding in the portfolio."
Talk about pumping up a stock you own.
Wrong. If you'd bother to read AZ's contributions over the years, you would know about the times he's recommended holding, selling, crossing or staying out altogether. Within the timeframe of his writing an article, he calls AAPL as he sees it. He'll be the first to tell you that he couldn't pump or dump except as he brings true perspectives to a less-than-rational market. If people buy into the facts he brings out, so much the better for transparency. Take, for instance, the belated recognition of the deferred subscription issue a couple years ago by the Wall Street community. It only came about after Andy repeatedly berated them for their flawed financial analysis that brought about an almost-criminal undervaluation by the analyst herd. Finally they wised up and Andy was no longer the prophet preaching in a wilderness of stupidity. In sum, Andy could no more pump AAPL than you could be knowing what you're talking about.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3108...rst?source=msn
So many different views
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3108...rst?source=msn
That is pretty humorous. No financial justification, no reasoned projections, just "sell because we think it's too high".
The reasons they gave are silly:
- Jobs' death? Already factored in to the stock price. Not that it's likely to matter - Jobs built an Apple that's fully capable of surviving without him.
- Apple products are expensive and won't do when in a poor economy. So what? Is this new? Is the economy suddenly going to get worse than it was for the last 3 years?
- Market is saturated? Then why is this quarter widely expected to be Apple's best quarter ever? And even if it were true, after adjusting for cash on hand, Apple's trading at 8 times earnings - which is far too low even if it doesn't grow.
- Apple is the largest US corporation so it can't grow. This one just doesn't make sense. So if Apple's sales quadruple and profits go up by 10,000 %, the share price can't go any higher? Do these people even THINK about what they say?
- "I don't see any groundbreaking products coming out". Maybe no one explained to him that Apple's secrecy is largely unprecedented. They're not going to tell him in advance. And if he had the creativity and drive to imagine groundbreaking products, he wouldn't be a paid MSN shill. Furthermore, even if he were correct, Apple's share price is too low, even based on existing products.
The really amazing thing is that apparently some people are so easily deluded that they fall for stuff like this.