"Euphemistic term"? If this was so easy, why would anyone go public? Answer: because doing so enables the company to exist and to grow, and make money for the original stakeholders (in the case of Apple, mostly Kleiner, Perkins, who also appointed the first chairman of the board (Mike Markkula), but also Jobs and Wozniak). As for people who own 0.0001% of the company: major decisions are made by a vote of SHARES (not people), so, very unfortunately, in the case of Apple the decisions of the board are rubber-stamped by the likes of Vanguard (which owns several percent of the company). The reason they rubberstamp is not that they necessarily think the decisions are great, but rather that Vanguard (and other passive major holders) has the philosophy that if they don't like what the management is doing, they will just sell the shares, instead of getting involved in a business they don't understand. The reason for the Apple share price drop is not the manipulation by some hedge fund cabal, but because the major holders HAVE been selling the shares (not all of them, but enough).
As for Tim Cook, you have no clue what you are talking about. Art Levinson (the chairman of the board) has 162K shares, Al Gore has 61K shares. Since non-insiders do not need to disclose their holdings, I don't know if some real estate developer in Denver has more. Tim has 13K shares (this, per Yahoo finance, which gets the info from SEC filings). I am guessing that MANY reasonably wealthy people have more apple shares than Tim (13K shares is only about $6MM at today's price). Tim dumped $86 MILLION worth of Apple stock about a year ago, when AAPL was trading at $550. Even Tim's underling Federighi has more stock than Tim.
You will see that institutions (almost all mutual funds and pension funds) have been dumped 25 MILLION shares of AAPL recently (I assume this is over Q4 2012).
No pun intended, but I truly wish you'd have the basic knowledge to compare apples to apples. In other words, guidance for 2nd fiscal quarter to guidance for 2nd fiscal quarter (not silly, pointless comparisons like 2nd quarter to 1st quarter, or guidance to actuals).
Would made sense if Apple didnt said they are doing guidance diffently now. No more lowballing it. We will see how they do in Q2, but according to them they will be in that range.
Would made sense if Apple didnt said they are doing guidance diffently now. No more lowballing it. We will see how they do in Q2, but according to them they will be in that range.
To be precise, Apple's actual revenue in Q2 2012 (also known as calendar Q1 2012) was $39BN [why would you use guidance if revenue figures are available?], if they are prognosticating $41BN and not lowballing, that is around a 6% increase. If there is margin shrinkage, then their profit is flat YoY, which is what herbapou is (correctly) saying.
Would made sense if Apple didnt said they are doing guidance diffently now. No more lowballing it. We will see how they do in Q2, but according to them they will be in that range.
Why don't you look up -- idiotic as it may be, but even accepting your silly argument -- look up the actual 2Q12, compare it against the "no-more-lowballing" range for 2Q13 and come back to let us know if that is a projected revenue increase?
The pity with guys like you is you are relentless, and don't really don't care much that you continue to wallow in your ignorance.
You will see that institutions (almost all mutual funds and pension funds) have been dumped 25 MILLION shares of AAPL recently (I assume this is over Q4 2012).
Which is why I've been suggesting that they need to do a stock split to encourage individual ownership.
Which is why I've been suggesting that they need to do a stock split to encourage individual ownership.
How would this encourage individual ownership? Your broker will be happy to sell you one share of apple for the $7.95 commission (the broker's cost is $0.001), and if someone can't afford to buy one share, then they probably are not a viable long-term investor -- they will need to sell their holding once rent time comes around.
That only happens when they introduce new products, like the ton of products they introduced.
Margins will grow, like they always do. But even if growth was negative, the stock price still is too low based on any reasonable metric.
What makes you think you are better equipped to judge Apple's valuation than the many financial professionals who have been busy reducing their holdings? (I agree with you, actually, that there is more value in the company than the stock price indicates, but I think that the current management has given no sign that they know how to actualize that value, which is why the investors have started to get disgusted).
Brian white sounds like he became an expert in corporate strategy While not all his ideas are bad, some just don't make sense.
No one had heard of Brian White (or Topeka Capital) until he put a $1001 target on Apple a year ago. Clearly, clairvoyance is not among his talents....
How would this encourage individual ownership? Your broker will be happy to sell you one share of apple for the $7.95 commission (the broker's cost is $0.001), and if someone can't afford to buy one share, then they probably are not a viable long-term investor -- they will need to sell their holding once rent time comes around.
This has been explained repeatedly.
First, if you have $1,000 to invest, a lot of people shy away from buying 2 shares of anything for $500 each. They're more likely to buy 20 shares at $50.
Second, a lot of people invest in small increments. They may have a plan set up to invest $400 per month. At $500 per share, they can't buy even one share per month - and have to start skipping months. At $50 per share, they can easily fit it into their plan.
While there's no real difference, the psychological difference is huge.
First, if you have $1,000 to invest, a lot of people shy away from buying 2 shares of anything for $500 each. They're more likely to buy 20 shares at $50.
Second, a lot of people invest in small increments. They may have a plan set up to invest $400 per month. At $500 per share, they can't buy even one share per month - and have to start skipping months. At $50 per share, they can easily fit it into their plan.
While there's no real difference, the psychological difference is huge.
Perhaps I don't read this forum religiously, so I did not see the repeated discussions. In any case, your "Second" point has been addressed, see:
In the last six months, Apple has lost more value than the total market cap of 490 of the 500 companies in the S&P index. Yet, management has said very little to reassure investors and has done nothing to bolster the stock price. I realize that Tim Cook seems to be following the super secret operating method established by Steve Jobs. But that gets old when the stock is falling like a rock for no good reason. Call me silly, but I become concerned when the value of my portfolio bleeds away on a daily basis for six months and management says nothing. Sure, I can sit on my stock because I do believe in Apple products; but that won't work for the options I hold that have an expiration date. I just feel that the management could do a lot more to reassure people that the company is on solid footing and will continue to increase in value.
In the last six months, Apple has lost more value than the total market cap of 490 of the 500 companies in the S&P index. Yet, management has said very little to reassure investors and has done nothing to bolster the stock price. .
Apple has increased by 70 since cook took over. Remember when Apple dropped by 40 points in 2008 in two weeks? Why no fuss then?
Apple has increased by 70 since cook took over. Remember when Apple dropped by 40 points in 2008 in two weeks? Why no fuss then?
Free Appletinis!
Apple has increased by (almost) seventy WHEN Cook took over, since the uncertainty about Jobs' role went away together with Jobs himself. Just before their blockbuster Q1 2012 results (remember, their Q1 is calendar Q4 of the previous year, so Steve was alive for half of it) their stock was trading at $420, so not much below today's price. Two months later Cook sold basically ALL of his stock at $550. The rest of us should have paid attention, I guess.
They sell more product every single quarter and make almost 100 billion a year. Revenue.
What else could they POSSIBLY need to do?
insider7 nailed it: they need to assure the investing public that they have a plan going forward. Their keeping the GNP of Belgium in a sock is not very reassuring.
insider7 nailed it: they need to assure the investing public that they have a plan going forward. Their keeping the GNP of Belgium in a sock is not very reassuring.
… They have a plan. This has been evident for a decade. That some choose not to see it is their problem and their fault.
One thing that immediately comes to mind is that Tim and the rest of the team could buy for stock for their own accounts. Also, they could give some indication of the kinds of things they are working on. They could do a much better job on PR in general.
… They have a plan. This has been evident for a decade. That some choose not to see it is their problem and their fault.
I was speaking nothing of their cash holdings.
Earlier in the decade that had a different CEO, who is no longer with us. There is no question that Tim Cook is a very good supply chain guy, and his execution of Steve Jobs' strategy is very good. What is not clear is what their vision is going forward. The fact that they are wasting shareholders' money by keeping it in a sock without a word of explanation is a VERY bad sign. If you don't think so, please feel free to add to your Apple holdings (I have actually increased mine lately, but am living to regret it so far).
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
"Euphemistic term"? If this was so easy, why would anyone go public? Answer: because doing so enables the company to exist and to grow, and make money for the original stakeholders (in the case of Apple, mostly Kleiner, Perkins, who also appointed the first chairman of the board (Mike Markkula), but also Jobs and Wozniak). As for people who own 0.0001% of the company: major decisions are made by a vote of SHARES (not people), so, very unfortunately, in the case of Apple the decisions of the board are rubber-stamped by the likes of Vanguard (which owns several percent of the company). The reason they rubberstamp is not that they necessarily think the decisions are great, but rather that Vanguard (and other passive major holders) has the philosophy that if they don't like what the management is doing, they will just sell the shares, instead of getting involved in a business they don't understand. The reason for the Apple share price drop is not the manipulation by some hedge fund cabal, but because the major holders HAVE been selling the shares (not all of them, but enough).
As for Tim Cook, you have no clue what you are talking about. Art Levinson (the chairman of the board) has 162K shares, Al Gore has 61K shares. Since non-insiders do not need to disclose their holdings, I don't know if some real estate developer in Denver has more. Tim has 13K shares (this, per Yahoo finance, which gets the info from SEC filings). I am guessing that MANY reasonably wealthy people have more apple shares than Tim (13K shares is only about $6MM at today's price). Tim dumped $86 MILLION worth of Apple stock about a year ago, when AAPL was trading at $550. Even Tim's underling Federighi has more stock than Tim.
After I wrote the above, I looked at http://investing.money.msn.com/investments/institutional-ownership?symbol=aapl
You will see that institutions (almost all mutual funds and pension funds) have been dumped 25 MILLION shares of AAPL recently (I assume this is over Q4 2012).
Would made sense if Apple didnt said they are doing guidance diffently now. No more lowballing it. We will see how they do in Q2, but according to them they will be in that range.
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
Would made sense if Apple didnt said they are doing guidance diffently now. No more lowballing it. We will see how they do in Q2, but according to them they will be in that range.
To be precise, Apple's actual revenue in Q2 2012 (also known as calendar Q1 2012) was $39BN [why would you use guidance if revenue figures are available?], if they are prognosticating $41BN and not lowballing, that is around a 6% increase. If there is margin shrinkage, then their profit is flat YoY, which is what herbapou is (correctly) saying.
Why don't you look up -- idiotic as it may be, but even accepting your silly argument -- look up the actual 2Q12, compare it against the "no-more-lowballing" range for 2Q13 and come back to let us know if that is a projected revenue increase?
The pity with guys like you is you are relentless, and don't really don't care much that you continue to wallow in your ignorance.
Which is why I've been suggesting that they need to do a stock split to encourage individual ownership.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Which is why I've been suggesting that they need to do a stock split to encourage individual ownership.
How would this encourage individual ownership? Your broker will be happy to sell you one share of apple for the $7.95 commission (the broker's cost is $0.001), and if someone can't afford to buy one share, then they probably are not a viable long-term investor -- they will need to sell their holding once rent time comes around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins
That only happens when they introduce new products, like the ton of products they introduced.
Margins will grow, like they always do. But even if growth was negative, the stock price still is too low based on any reasonable metric.
What makes you think you are better equipped to judge Apple's valuation than the many financial professionals who have been busy reducing their holdings? (I agree with you, actually, that there is more value in the company than the stock price indicates, but I think that the current management has given no sign that they know how to actualize that value, which is why the investors have started to get disgusted).
Quote:
Originally Posted by BUSHMAN4
Brian white sounds like he became an expert in corporate strategy While not all his ideas are bad, some just don't make sense.
No one had heard of Brian White (or Topeka Capital) until he put a $1001 target on Apple a year ago. Clearly, clairvoyance is not among his talents....
This has been explained repeatedly.
First, if you have $1,000 to invest, a lot of people shy away from buying 2 shares of anything for $500 each. They're more likely to buy 20 shares at $50.
Second, a lot of people invest in small increments. They may have a plan set up to invest $400 per month. At $500 per share, they can't buy even one share per month - and have to start skipping months. At $50 per share, they can easily fit it into their plan.
While there's no real difference, the psychological difference is huge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
This has been explained repeatedly.
First, if you have $1,000 to invest, a lot of people shy away from buying 2 shares of anything for $500 each. They're more likely to buy 20 shares at $50.
Second, a lot of people invest in small increments. They may have a plan set up to invest $400 per month. At $500 per share, they can't buy even one share per month - and have to start skipping months. At $50 per share, they can easily fit it into their plan.
While there's no real difference, the psychological difference is huge.
Perhaps I don't read this forum religiously, so I did not see the repeated discussions. In any case, your "Second" point has been addressed, see:
http://www.fool.com/investing/brokerage/what-if-i-can-only-invest-a-little-every-month.aspx
http://www.sharebuilder.com/sharebuilder/investment-options.aspx
In the last six months, Apple has lost more value than the total market cap of 490 of the 500 companies in the S&P index. Yet, management has said very little to reassure investors and has done nothing to bolster the stock price. I realize that Tim Cook seems to be following the super secret operating method established by Steve Jobs. But that gets old when the stock is falling like a rock for no good reason. Call me silly, but I become concerned when the value of my portfolio bleeds away on a daily basis for six months and management says nothing. Sure, I can sit on my stock because I do believe in Apple products; but that won't work for the options I hold that have an expiration date. I just feel that the management could do a lot more to reassure people that the company is on solid footing and will continue to increase in value.
Originally Posted by insider7
I just feel that the management could do a lot more to reassure people that the company is on solid footing and will continue to increase in value.
They sell more product every single quarter and make almost 100 billion a year. Revenue.
What else could they POSSIBLY need to do?
Apple has increased by 70 since cook took over. Remember when Apple dropped by 40 points in 2008 in two weeks? Why no fuss then?
Free Appletinis!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
Apple has increased by 70 since cook took over. Remember when Apple dropped by 40 points in 2008 in two weeks? Why no fuss then?
Free Appletinis!
Apple has increased by (almost) seventy WHEN Cook took over, since the uncertainty about Jobs' role went away together with Jobs himself. Just before their blockbuster Q1 2012 results (remember, their Q1 is calendar Q4 of the previous year, so Steve was alive for half of it) their stock was trading at $420, so not much below today's price. Two months later Cook sold basically ALL of his stock at $550. The rest of us should have paid attention, I guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
They sell more product every single quarter and make almost 100 billion a year. Revenue.
What else could they POSSIBLY need to do?
insider7 nailed it: they need to assure the investing public that they have a plan going forward. Their keeping the GNP of Belgium in a sock is not very reassuring.
Originally Posted by igriv
insider7 nailed it: they need to assure the investing public that they have a plan going forward. Their keeping the GNP of Belgium in a sock is not very reassuring.
… They have a plan. This has been evident for a decade. That some choose not to see it is their problem and their fault.
I was speaking nothing of their cash holdings.
One thing that immediately comes to mind is that Tim and the rest of the team could buy for stock for their own accounts. Also, they could give some indication of the kinds of things they are working on. They could do a much better job on PR in general.
Originally Posted by insider7
Also, they could give some indication of the kinds of things they are working on.
So you've never followed Apple, then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
… They have a plan. This has been evident for a decade. That some choose not to see it is their problem and their fault.
I was speaking nothing of their cash holdings.
Earlier in the decade that had a different CEO, who is no longer with us. There is no question that Tim Cook is a very good supply chain guy, and his execution of Steve Jobs' strategy is very good. What is not clear is what their vision is going forward. The fact that they are wasting shareholders' money by keeping it in a sock without a word of explanation is a VERY bad sign. If you don't think so, please feel free to add to your Apple holdings (I have actually increased mine lately, but am living to regret it so far).