"If the stock keeps going down they could buy themselves with the cash they have. Get the stock down to $200 and it could be done."
Since companies are owned by people, who would own Apple if they took it private? Who is "they"? So Tim Cook, Jony Ive, etal, are going to take that $140 Billion in cash, that's not theirs by the way, but rather belongs to the shareholders, and buy the company?
Apple stock at $200? Who ARE you?
While I agree that $200 is ridiculous (but, then, so is $460), the way it works (as you know) is that companies don't buy themselves. When a company goes private and delists, SOMEONE has to put up the money. What would happen is that someone would put together a consortium of buyers who would put up the money to buy all outstanding shares. Typically, that would be a private equity group. If that were to happen, the private equity group would own the company and shareholders would not. Typically, the management team would be given a percentage of the company in the transaction.
Except that from an investor stand point, he may be right.
Apple's a growth stock. A lot of their valuation is based on the expectation of Apple coming out with something game changing periodically that will blow up earnings with revenue from a new market.
That, of course, ignores the simple fact that a 'growth stock' trading at a forward cash-adjusted P/E below 7 is not a growth stock by any normal definition.
The market is rightfully spooked. First, the falling margins. Next, and more importantly, most of Apple's earnings come from iPhone sales. And iPhone sales missed. Investors trade on forward earnings. And many suspect that Apple may be starting to see stiff competition finally, possibly driving both sales and margins lower. Man, if I knew the numbers would have been this bad, I would have shorted the stock. This fear of competition is exactly why Apple's PE has always been lower than you would expect. People compare Apple to Amazon and GE. If you do that, you are thinking like a fanboy and not an investor. As an investor, you should be scared of a company dependent on one product which they launch once a year, and which is starting to face growing headwinds, and running out of new markets to exploit (as in places where people can afford $800 iPhones). Amazon and GE are substantially more diversified, strong in multiple markets and don't yet have major competition that could kill their earnings with just one bad product launch. This risk is why investors discount the stock.
Crying about how markets are failing and capitalism is just fanboy drivel from those who don't understand how markets work and what drives investor sentiment.
Now, I've bought AAPL and suffered a bit of a hit on paper, but for me, it's one stock in my portfolio and I don't day trade. I've bought those shares and they'll be in there till I die or Apple does. I know Apple will eventually transition to a stable blue chip paying solid dividends, rather than a growth company sitting on more money than God.
But for me, my new growth stock is TSLA. Musk might actually be even more of a visionary than Jobs. The guy has actually taken 3 companies to billion dollar valuations from virtually nothing. And all in markets where he would face remarkable and entrenched resistance.
Refresh my memory. How many products does Tesla sell?
The management has once again shown how weak it is when it comes to financial matters. They should take this opportunity to buyback at least 10% of the shares.
In spite of how bad as the last couple months have been, I'm holding onto the stock because I think it's going to rise beyond the previous high after the new Apple TV debuts. Investors have been scared because Apple hasn't released any groundbreaking products since Jobs died. They need to see that Apple still has thatmagic touch.
Oh come on... Apple TV... we have one already. What more is there? Apple cannot get in bed with media companies, and who's going to compete quality wise against Samsung and Sony and many others in a very saturated market. We have Netflix on everything. Rokus, Apple TVs, consoles etc.
Apple made money creating markets. Now others have caught up, they need to open up new markets again to really lift their stock price.
The management has once again shown how weak it is when it comes to financial matters. They should take this opportunity to buyback at least 10% of the shares.
As of right now that is $43.6 billion. I think the $10 billion buyback they already agreed to is sufficient.
The issue at hand isn't that Apple constantly released groundbreaking products before and now does not. It's that Steve Jobs was seen as the reason that Apple could release such products, and it hasn't been proven since his death that they still can.
And they accuse us of putting Steve Jobs on a pedestal...
Refresh my memory. How many products does Tesla sell?
Two right now, unless you count parts.
I was pointing out to Jetz the inconsistency of his stock choices. Are you sure Tesla is still making roadsters? I think the Model S is the only one
in production.
Oh come on... Apple TV... we have one already. What more is there? Apple cannot get in bed with media companies, and who's going to compete quality wise against Samsung and Sony and many others in a very saturated market. We have Netflix on everything. Rokus, Apple TVs, consoles etc.
Apple made money creating markets. Now others have caught up, they need to open up new markets again to really lift their stock price.
Say what you will, but I think there is plenty of room for Apple to disrupt the TV market. The TV is the last screen currently in houses (not to speak to the screens we will be using in the next decade) that does not have an elegant solution for use as a computer. Smart TVs have been around for a while, and there are certainly good options available, but they haven't caught on in the mass market. Out of all companies, Apple has had the best track record for rethinking existing products and I fully believe they will do it with the television.
As you mentioned, Apple doesn't stand a very good chance of revamping television service, but there are still many options on the table for what they can do to make that service more usable. On the Wii U Nintendo has created an elegant solution for a TV guide by indexing content and making it searchable with a touch interface. Although there may not be much more additional functionality that Apple could add in this area, they can make it more usable by integrating it into the television at the OS level rather than relying on an additional box that you have to add to your entertainment center. I also expect Apple to either ship their TV with a touch screen controller or (and?) create an app that allows iPads and iPhones to control the television. And who can forget Siri? Siri might be forgettable when it comes to web searching, but it's fantastic for system functionality. Why reach for your tablet remote when you can just call out a channel? Why pull up a guide when you can ask for a list of cooking shows starting in the next half hour? There is a lot that Apple can do in this space.
PS - for Tallest, Apple ][, Solipsism, and all the others who I regularly disagree with, please note my adoration for Apple as a company. I love everything they do (hardware, OSX, integration of products, customer service, you name it), except for iOS and their litigation against Android OEMs. Android is unarguably a more functional OS, and I am annoyed that I can't have an Apple phone without sacrificing usability. That is usability, not smoothness or polish. iOS is at a serious deficit compared to Android, and Apple needs to rectify that ASAP.
It seems I'm not alone in thinking the Mac is what defines Apple, what it's shocking is to see that it's the investors who agree with me, rather than Apple fans. I'd expect Mac users to value the Mac, and investors to value the easy money from iOS, but it's just the opposite, for reasons unknown.
Other flagship phones are $600 too. But those manufacturers also sell crappy $100 phones in addition to their flagship phones. No wonder they have insane market share numbers across the globe.
If you buy a cheap $100 Android phone because you don't have the money for an expensive one, you will get used to Android OS and ecosystem and next time, when you will have the money for an expensive phone you will not switch to Apple, you will buy an expensive Android phone. Market share DOES MATTER! People don't like to learn new stuff. See how many people still hang on Windows XP because they don't like or don't want to learn Windows 7 or 8.
That's absolutely right, but they're building them right now, aren't they? I guess it doesn't mean anything unless they can count 'em shipped.
I don't think they are building the model x yet. They are working hard to ramp up production of the model S in order to fulfill demand. (That sounds familiar, doesn't it? People often express impatience with delays in receiving their iDevices, but imagine waiting many months for one of those fancy cars.)
If you buy a cheap $100 Android phone because you don't have the money for an expensive one, you will get used to Android OS and ecosystem and next time, when you will have the money for an expensive phone you will not switch to Apple, you will buy an expensive Android phone. Market share DOES MATTER! People don't like to learn new stuff. See how many people still hang on Windows XP because they don't like or don't want to learn Windows 7 or 8.
Of course you can get a subsidized $700 Android phone for $0-200. You can even get subsidized iPhones for $0-300. Even high end smartphones are affordable. I don't know where you live, but where I am, seeing anyone with anything but a high-end phone is rare... Galaxy S3, Note 2 and iPhone 5 are the most widespread phones I see...
Comments
I am. I haven't known anyone else with that name and assumed it was the first name so my association is that it's male only.
Since it's a unisex name my joke clearly doesn't work. Oh well. The one time I don't do any research.
I am.
While I agree that $200 is ridiculous (but, then, so is $460), the way it works (as you know) is that companies don't buy themselves. When a company goes private and delists, SOMEONE has to put up the money. What would happen is that someone would put together a consortium of buyers who would put up the money to buy all outstanding shares. Typically, that would be a private equity group. If that were to happen, the private equity group would own the company and shareholders would not. Typically, the management team would be given a percentage of the company in the transaction.
That, of course, ignores the simple fact that a 'growth stock' trading at a forward cash-adjusted P/E below 7 is not a growth stock by any normal definition.
Refresh my memory. How many products does Tesla sell?
The management has once again shown how weak it is when it comes to financial matters. They should take this opportunity to buyback at least 10% of the shares.
Quote:
Originally Posted by APPLGUY
Less than analysts predicted but more than guidance. Apple is DOOMED!!
There is no denying the results are very poor. 0% profit growth.
Oh come on... Apple TV... we have one already. What more is there? Apple cannot get in bed with media companies, and who's going to compete quality wise against Samsung and Sony and many others in a very saturated market. We have Netflix on everything. Rokus, Apple TVs, consoles etc.
Apple made money creating markets. Now others have caught up, they need to open up new markets again to really lift their stock price.
Originally Posted by quinney
Refresh my memory. How many products does Tesla sell?
Two right now, unless you count parts/accessories.
As of right now that is $43.6 billion. I think the $10 billion buyback they already agreed to is sufficient.
And they accuse us of putting Steve Jobs on a pedestal...
I was pointing out to Jetz the inconsistency of his stock choices. Are you sure Tesla is still making roadsters? I think the Model S is the only one
in production.
Originally Posted by quinney
I was pointing out to Jetz the inconsistency of his stock choices. Are you sure Tesla is still making roadsters? I think the Model S is the only one
in production.
I was counting the Telsa X, for which they're taking orders and which I assume are in production. Yes, they've stopped the Roadster.
Last thing I saw Model X is for next year.
Last thing I saw Model X is for next year.
Originally Posted by quinney
Last thing I saw Model X is for next year.
That's absolutely right, but they're building them right now, aren't they? I guess it doesn't mean anything unless they can count 'em shipped.
Quote:
Originally Posted by realwarder
Oh come on... Apple TV... we have one already. What more is there? Apple cannot get in bed with media companies, and who's going to compete quality wise against Samsung and Sony and many others in a very saturated market. We have Netflix on everything. Rokus, Apple TVs, consoles etc.
Apple made money creating markets. Now others have caught up, they need to open up new markets again to really lift their stock price.
Say what you will, but I think there is plenty of room for Apple to disrupt the TV market. The TV is the last screen currently in houses (not to speak to the screens we will be using in the next decade) that does not have an elegant solution for use as a computer. Smart TVs have been around for a while, and there are certainly good options available, but they haven't caught on in the mass market. Out of all companies, Apple has had the best track record for rethinking existing products and I fully believe they will do it with the television.
As you mentioned, Apple doesn't stand a very good chance of revamping television service, but there are still many options on the table for what they can do to make that service more usable. On the Wii U Nintendo has created an elegant solution for a TV guide by indexing content and making it searchable with a touch interface. Although there may not be much more additional functionality that Apple could add in this area, they can make it more usable by integrating it into the television at the OS level rather than relying on an additional box that you have to add to your entertainment center. I also expect Apple to either ship their TV with a touch screen controller or (and?) create an app that allows iPads and iPhones to control the television. And who can forget Siri? Siri might be forgettable when it comes to web searching, but it's fantastic for system functionality. Why reach for your tablet remote when you can just call out a channel? Why pull up a guide when you can ask for a list of cooking shows starting in the next half hour? There is a lot that Apple can do in this space.
PS - for Tallest, Apple ][, Solipsism, and all the others who I regularly disagree with, please note my adoration for Apple as a company. I love everything they do (hardware, OSX, integration of products, customer service, you name it), except for iOS and their litigation against Android OEMs. Android is unarguably a more functional OS, and I am annoyed that I can't have an Apple phone without sacrificing usability. That is usability, not smoothness or polish. iOS is at a serious deficit compared to Android, and Apple needs to rectify that ASAP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip
Other flagship phones are $600 too. But those manufacturers also sell crappy $100 phones in addition to their flagship phones. No wonder they have insane market share numbers across the globe.
If you buy a cheap $100 Android phone because you don't have the money for an expensive one, you will get used to Android OS and ecosystem and next time, when you will have the money for an expensive phone you will not switch to Apple, you will buy an expensive Android phone. Market share DOES MATTER! People don't like to learn new stuff. See how many people still hang on Windows XP because they don't like or don't want to learn Windows 7 or 8.
I don't think they are building the model x yet. They are working hard to ramp up production of the model S in order to fulfill demand. (That sounds familiar, doesn't it? People often express impatience with delays in receiving their iDevices, but imagine waiting many months for one of those fancy cars.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by NelsonX
If you buy a cheap $100 Android phone because you don't have the money for an expensive one, you will get used to Android OS and ecosystem and next time, when you will have the money for an expensive phone you will not switch to Apple, you will buy an expensive Android phone. Market share DOES MATTER! People don't like to learn new stuff. See how many people still hang on Windows XP because they don't like or don't want to learn Windows 7 or 8.
Of course you can get a subsidized $700 Android phone for $0-200. You can even get subsidized iPhones for $0-300. Even high end smartphones are affordable. I don't know where you live, but where I am, seeing anyone with anything but a high-end phone is rare... Galaxy S3, Note 2 and iPhone 5 are the most widespread phones I see...