$250B in wealth wiped out in less than a year -- is this the largest in known history for any corporation (including perhaps the East India Companies)? -- and not a peep from management.
Wow.
The longer the management fails to peep, the longer the carnage is going to last.
Release Mac Pro now; 5s in June; iPad mini w/retina August; iWatch in October and their stock will reach $700 again. Split shares and it could reach $1,000.
Part the Red Sea, and unleash a plague of locusts onto Mountain View, and $1100 is in sight.
And yet still the most valuable company in the world in terms of market capitalization, with a pile of cash equal to the GDP of some countries, margins any company any would kill for, raking in most of the profit of the tech universe, and a P/E that leaves any rational person scratching their heads Your argument simply does not apply here. Nothing about this situation has any basis in rational thought so no "peep" from management could possibly explain it either. The entire story of Apple is based on emotion, usually the emotion of hate.
When we are talking about this amount of money, you cannot explain things by emotion. Many quite smart people are paid full-time to follow Apple. Apple's management is failing to manage shareholder value (this is not an opinion, but a fact: in the last year the market is up 30%, Apple's stock is flat -- this is a disastrous destruction of value).
The story was mostly about Fidelity dumping some AAPL stock. It is just a 10% equity holding adjustment, no big deal. Sure there was a bit of editorializing in the last couple of paragraphs of the article though it expresses some common sentiments echoed lately by many stock holders, but I don't think the recent AAPL sell off is due to hate. Institutional investors are in business to make money and are unlikely to take a position based on emotion especially if it is contrary to financial indications. Typically trash talk as a tactic to lower a stock price is done for short term profit but this decline is a steady downturn for the past six months, which to me exhibits more of a long term trend. Stock trends are usually based on forward expectations not past performance. I don't have a position in AAPL right now but the chart is a little scary.
Here's a 6 month AAPL chart compared to Dow, Nasdaq and S&P. Scary indeed. If the board announces a bigger dividend or share buy back I think the question will be what took them so long. If I was an employee, especially one who received stock as part of my compensation, not sure how my morale would be seeing the stock near its 52 week low.
If it hits $400 (down over $13 today), I'm selling some gold and moving into APPL. I think over 12 months I'll get a better return than gold without something crazy happening.
Speaking of uncertainty, I wish I could find this report written by some tech Ph.D guru that said in the next 4 years everything with an IMEI from phones to smart refrigerators to cars would have to be replaced. And I can't remember the exact reason why. It was a very technical article that came out about 7 months ago or so.
If it hits $400 (down over $13 today), I'm selling some gold and moving into APPL. I think over 12 months I'll get a better return than gold without something crazy happening.
Speaking of uncertainty, I wish I could find this report written by some tech Ph.D guru that said in the next 4 years everything with an IMEI from phones to smart refrigerators to cars would have to be replaced. And I can't remember the exact reason why. It was a very technical article that came out about 7 months ago or so.
Speaking of uncertainty, I wish I could find this report written by some tech Ph.D guru that said in the next 4 years everything with an IMEI from phones to smart refrigerators to cars would have to be replaced. And I can't remember the exact reason why. It was a very technical article that came out about 7 months ago or so.
Was his reasoning along the lines of the same sort of problem we've run into with IPv4? I've not heard the same about IMEI, myself.
Why $400... I'm so much of a jinx that when I walk up to a craps table, everyone moves their cheques to "Don't Pass." I figure I'd least save $25 to $30 a share loss.
Heck, when I buy the first share, Cook and Co. will be selling Gordon Gekko phones at the flea markets within 6 months due to my luck.
These funds are attempting to devalue Apple so they can drive leverage on the board to make some changes that benefit hedge fund managers and more. It' won't work.
$250B in wealth wiped out in less than a year -- is this the largest in known history for any corporation (including perhaps the East India Companies)? -- and not a peep from management.
How long did it take to gain that?
Jan 20th 2012, $420
September 21st 2012, $700
9 months
How long did it take to come back down?
April 1st, 2013, $428
7 months
Largest known gain, largest known loss (all while Tim was CEO).
Statements like these seem to imply that someone else besides Steve is in fact another Steve Jobs. Who might that be? Zuckerberg? Bezos? Larry Page? Marissa Mayer?
These funds are attempting to devalue Apple so they can drive leverage on the board to make some changes that benefit hedge fund managers and more.
It's definitely suspect. The suggestions are always to release more and cheaper products (which obviously lowers margins) but it probably struck people that even at the current value, Apple is valued more highly than any other company so it was a missed opportunity if people didn't sell high. Some want it to go high again so they can sell at the high price (now that they know the peak), others want a payout from the cash pile. Either way, it has nothing to do with the health of the company but it's presented that way.
I think it will level out around $450-500. Apple can't get into a better position than they are in.
It doesn't make sense to do a massive buyout to go private because that's just wasting a lot of money and most of it is overseas. They don't need to go private either. That would just be to quieten things down and they can ignore the noise quite easily. The money would be better spent on companies and services that secure future revenue streams. It's easy to make the assumption that the people working there are not competent enough when something appears to be going wrong but they only sell a handful of products and they are making more money than anyone and managing tens of billions of dollars every quarter. I'd say they know what they're doing.
The shareholder suggestions that keep coming forward are suggestions that benefit shareholders at the expense of the company e.g boosting stock price while lowering margins or reducing the cash pile and there's no justification for that. The people at Apple have a duty to maintain the health of the company and they are doing that extremely well.
If I was an employee, especially one who received stock as part of my compensation, not sure how my morale would be seeing the stock near its 52 week low.
Screw the employees, they get their stock for real cheap. What about the people who pay full price for it?
These funds are attempting to devalue Apple so they can drive leverage on the board to make some changes that benefit hedge fund managers and more. It' won't work.
How are those aliens beaming radio waves at you doing?
Largest known gain, largest known loss (all while Tim was CEO).
Statements like these seem to imply that someone else besides Steve is in fact another Steve Jobs. Who might that be? Zuckerberg? Bezos? Larry Page? Marissa Mayer?
It's definitely suspect. The suggestions are always to release more and cheaper products (which obviously lowers margins) but it probably struck people that even at the current value, Apple is valued more highly than any other company so it was a missed opportunity if people didn't sell high. Some want it to go high again so they can sell at the high price (now that they know the peak), others want a payout from the cash pile. Either way, it has nothing to do with the health of the company but it's presented that way.
I think it will level out around $450-500. Apple can't get into a better position than they are in.
It doesn't make sense to do a massive buyout to go private because that's just wasting a lot of money and most of it is overseas. They don't need to go private either. That would just be to quieten things down and they can ignore the noise quite easily. The money would be better spent on companies and services that secure future revenue streams. It's easy to make the assumption that the people working there are not competent enough when something appears to be going wrong but they only sell a handful of products and they are making more money than anyone and managing tens of billions of dollars every quarter. I'd say they know what they're doing.
The shareholder suggestions that keep coming forward are suggestions that benefit shareholders at the expense of the company e.g boosting stock price while lowering margins or reducing the cash pile and there's no justification for that. The people at Apple have a duty to maintain the health of the company and they are doing that extremely well.
Unless and until Apple explains what the point of keeping $150BN in the bank is, the last paragraph is senseless, and in fact, the management has publicly admitted that they have way too much money in the bank.
Otherwise, if Apple levels out at $450-500, this indicates a complete lack of confidence in current leadership (as this stock price soap opera continues to play out, the lack of confidence seems more and more justified), since the price seems very low on paper.
The other statements are ridiculous. Tim Cook is not Steve Jobs does not imply that anyone IS another Steve. It IS, however obvious, and not worth repeating. "Hedge funds manipulating the price" is totally moronic. Most of apple stock is owned by gigantic mutual funds (like the one in the initial story) or pension funds, and no amount of hedge fund activity would drop the price by 35% (even more so 60% in market-adjusted terms).
When we are talking about this amount of money, you cannot explain things by emotion. Many quite smart people are paid full-time to follow Apple. Apple's management is failing to manage shareholder value (this is not an opinion, but a fact: in the last year the market is up 30%, Apple's stock is flat -- this is a disastrous destruction of value).
Except for one simple thing. It's not Cook's job to manage shareholder value. It's Cook's job to run the company so that it continues to grow. So far, he has done a commendable job of doing that - in spite of all the whining from people like you.
Unless and until Apple explains what the point of keeping $150BN in the bank is, the last paragraph is senseless, and in fact, the management has publicly admitted that they have way too much money in the bank.
Apple has said that they're considering what to do with the money. That is different than 'publicly admitting that they have too much'.
Simply handing it out left and right is probably the stupidest thing they can do with it.
Fidelity sold 1.13 million shares in the period from January through February. That is just one institution for only a two month period. If we assume they received about $450 per share on average, that amounts to $508.5 million. What split do you envision which would entice enough individuals to replace
that size of institutional investment, let alone all the other institutional investments? Or never mind replacing it. How many investors at what price would
even make a dent? If you are going to continue promoting a split as helping AAPL's price, you should provide some numbers explaining why.
No one ever claimed that it would be a 1 for 1 replacement for Fidelity, so please stop making stupid straw man arguments.
I believe it would help (and most people who study the market would agree). I never said how much it would help. It might make up for 10% of what Fidelity sold or it might be 5 times what Fidelity sold. But it is clear that it would help. It would bring some people into the market who do not currently buy Apple stock. That would apply upward pressure to the price. I don't think there's anyone who could predict how much, but it would help.
Except for one simple thing. It's not Cook's job to manage shareholder value. It's Cook's job to run the company so that it continues to grow. So far, he has done a commendable job of doing that - in spite of all the whining from people like you.
Apple has said that they're considering what to do with the money. That is different than 'publicly admitting that they have too much'.
Simply handing it out left and right is probably the stupidest thing they can do with it.
No one ever claimed that it would be a 1 for 1 replacement for Fidelity, so please stop making stupid straw man arguments.
I believe it would help (and most people who study the market would agree). I never said how much it would help. It might make up for 10% of what Fidelity sold or it might be 5 times what Fidelity sold. But it is clear that it would help. It would bring some people into the market who do not currently buy Apple stock. That would apply upward pressure to the price. I don't think there's anyone who could predict how much, but it would help.
1. It IS Cook's job to manage shareholder value. It is his ONLY job. The only thing that makes it unclear is that he is managing the long-term value, and if he makes a credible argument that what he is doing now is in the interest of such value, then the short-term oscillations in the stock price can be ignored. He has not made such an argument, and the dive in Apple's share price is now "medium-term", as opposed to short term.
2. Saying "they are considering what to do with the money" does say that they are aware there is a problem, but has no further information (sort of like "I have no statement to make at this time").
3. Handing it out is far from stupid. The Einhorn proposal or a buyback might be more intelligent, that's true, but it does not mean that upping the dividend is stupid.
4. The split idea would (a) do nothing and (b) would be an admission of weakness. Notice that Apple's tech brethren GOOG and AMZN have been going onward and upward without any such machinations.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
$250B in wealth wiped out in less than a year -- is this the largest in known history for any corporation (including perhaps the East India Companies)? -- and not a peep from management.
Wow.
The longer the management fails to peep, the longer the carnage is going to last.
Quote:
Originally Posted by poally dog
Release Mac Pro now; 5s in June; iPad mini w/retina August; iWatch in October and their stock will reach $700 again. Split shares and it could reach $1,000.
Part the Red Sea, and unleash a plague of locusts onto Mountain View, and $1100 is in sight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp
And yet still the most valuable company in the world in terms of market capitalization, with a pile of cash equal to the GDP of some countries, margins any company any would kill for, raking in most of the profit of the tech universe, and a P/E that leaves any rational person scratching their heads Your argument simply does not apply here. Nothing about this situation has any basis in rational thought so no "peep" from management could possibly explain it either. The entire story of Apple is based on emotion, usually the emotion of hate.
When we are talking about this amount of money, you cannot explain things by emotion. Many quite smart people are paid full-time to follow Apple. Apple's management is failing to manage shareholder value (this is not an opinion, but a fact: in the last year the market is up 30%, Apple's stock is flat -- this is a disastrous destruction of value).
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
The title is misleading. The word "cuts" suggests the selling just occurred, but in fact it occurred January and February. It is now two months later.
Apple is continuing to tank, so institutional selling has not ended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
The story was mostly about Fidelity dumping some AAPL stock. It is just a 10% equity holding adjustment, no big deal. Sure there was a bit of editorializing in the last couple of paragraphs of the article though it expresses some common sentiments echoed lately by many stock holders, but I don't think the recent AAPL sell off is due to hate. Institutional investors are in business to make money and are unlikely to take a position based on emotion especially if it is contrary to financial indications. Typically trash talk as a tactic to lower a stock price is done for short term profit but this decline is a steady downturn for the past six months, which to me exhibits more of a long term trend. Stock trends are usually based on forward expectations not past performance. I don't have a position in AAPL right now but the chart is a little scary.
Here's a 6 month AAPL chart compared to Dow, Nasdaq and S&P. Scary indeed. If the board announces a bigger dividend or share buy back I think the question will be what took them so long. If I was an employee, especially one who received stock as part of my compensation, not sure how my morale would be seeing the stock near its 52 week low.
If it hits $400 (down over $13 today), I'm selling some gold and moving into APPL. I think over 12 months I'll get a better return than gold without something crazy happening.
Speaking of uncertainty, I wish I could find this report written by some tech Ph.D guru that said in the next 4 years everything with an IMEI from phones to smart refrigerators to cars would have to be replaced. And I can't remember the exact reason why. It was a very technical article that came out about 7 months ago or so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCProfessor
If it hits $400 (down over $13 today), I'm selling some gold and moving into APPL. I think over 12 months I'll get a better return than gold without something crazy happening.
Speaking of uncertainty, I wish I could find this report written by some tech Ph.D guru that said in the next 4 years everything with an IMEI from phones to smart refrigerators to cars would have to be replaced. And I can't remember the exact reason why. It was a very technical article that came out about 7 months ago or so.
What's so special about $400?
Originally Posted by SCProfessor
Speaking of uncertainty, I wish I could find this report written by some tech Ph.D guru that said in the next 4 years everything with an IMEI from phones to smart refrigerators to cars would have to be replaced. And I can't remember the exact reason why. It was a very technical article that came out about 7 months ago or so.
Was his reasoning along the lines of the same sort of problem we've run into with IPv4? I've not heard the same about IMEI, myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Was his reasoning along the lines of the same sort of problem we've run into with IPv4? I've not heard the same about IMEI, myself.
It might be in going to IPv6... I got to find that article.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
What's so special about $400?
Why $400... I'm so much of a jinx that when I walk up to a craps table, everyone moves their cheques to "Don't Pass." I figure I'd least save $25 to $30 a share loss.
Heck, when I buy the first share, Cook and Co. will be selling Gordon Gekko phones at the flea markets within 6 months due to my luck.
How long did it take to gain that?
Jan 20th 2012, $420
September 21st 2012, $700
9 months
How long did it take to come back down?
April 1st, 2013, $428
7 months
Largest known gain, largest known loss (all while Tim was CEO).
Statements like these seem to imply that someone else besides Steve is in fact another Steve Jobs. Who might that be? Zuckerberg? Bezos? Larry Page? Marissa Mayer?
It's definitely suspect. The suggestions are always to release more and cheaper products (which obviously lowers margins) but it probably struck people that even at the current value, Apple is valued more highly than any other company so it was a missed opportunity if people didn't sell high. Some want it to go high again so they can sell at the high price (now that they know the peak), others want a payout from the cash pile. Either way, it has nothing to do with the health of the company but it's presented that way.
I think it will level out around $450-500. Apple can't get into a better position than they are in.
It doesn't make sense to do a massive buyout to go private because that's just wasting a lot of money and most of it is overseas. They don't need to go private either. That would just be to quieten things down and they can ignore the noise quite easily. The money would be better spent on companies and services that secure future revenue streams. It's easy to make the assumption that the people working there are not competent enough when something appears to be going wrong but they only sell a handful of products and they are making more money than anyone and managing tens of billions of dollars every quarter. I'd say they know what they're doing.
The shareholder suggestions that keep coming forward are suggestions that benefit shareholders at the expense of the company e.g boosting stock price while lowering margins or reducing the cash pile and there's no justification for that. The people at Apple have a duty to maintain the health of the company and they are doing that extremely well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
If I was an employee, especially one who received stock as part of my compensation, not sure how my morale would be seeing the stock near its 52 week low.
Screw the employees, they get their stock for real cheap. What about the people who pay full price for it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Statements like these seem to imply that someone else besides Steve is in fact another Steve Jobs.
Didn't imply that to me at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
These funds are attempting to devalue Apple so they can drive leverage on the board to make some changes that benefit hedge fund managers and more. It' won't work.
How are those aliens beaming radio waves at you doing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
How long did it take to gain that?
Jan 20th 2012, $420
September 21st 2012, $700
9 months
How long did it take to come back down?
April 1st, 2013, $428
7 months
Largest known gain, largest known loss (all while Tim was CEO).
Statements like these seem to imply that someone else besides Steve is in fact another Steve Jobs. Who might that be? Zuckerberg? Bezos? Larry Page? Marissa Mayer?
It's definitely suspect. The suggestions are always to release more and cheaper products (which obviously lowers margins) but it probably struck people that even at the current value, Apple is valued more highly than any other company so it was a missed opportunity if people didn't sell high. Some want it to go high again so they can sell at the high price (now that they know the peak), others want a payout from the cash pile. Either way, it has nothing to do with the health of the company but it's presented that way.
I think it will level out around $450-500. Apple can't get into a better position than they are in.
It doesn't make sense to do a massive buyout to go private because that's just wasting a lot of money and most of it is overseas. They don't need to go private either. That would just be to quieten things down and they can ignore the noise quite easily. The money would be better spent on companies and services that secure future revenue streams. It's easy to make the assumption that the people working there are not competent enough when something appears to be going wrong but they only sell a handful of products and they are making more money than anyone and managing tens of billions of dollars every quarter. I'd say they know what they're doing.
The shareholder suggestions that keep coming forward are suggestions that benefit shareholders at the expense of the company e.g boosting stock price while lowering margins or reducing the cash pile and there's no justification for that. The people at Apple have a duty to maintain the health of the company and they are doing that extremely well.
Unless and until Apple explains what the point of keeping $150BN in the bank is, the last paragraph is senseless, and in fact, the management has publicly admitted that they have way too much money in the bank.
Otherwise, if Apple levels out at $450-500, this indicates a complete lack of confidence in current leadership (as this stock price soap opera continues to play out, the lack of confidence seems more and more justified), since the price seems very low on paper.
The other statements are ridiculous. Tim Cook is not Steve Jobs does not imply that anyone IS another Steve. It IS, however obvious, and not worth repeating. "Hedge funds manipulating the price" is totally moronic. Most of apple stock is owned by gigantic mutual funds (like the one in the initial story) or pension funds, and no amount of hedge fund activity would drop the price by 35% (even more so 60% in market-adjusted terms).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Screw the employees, they get their stock for real cheap. What about the people who pay full price for it?
The employees do NOT get the stock for real cheap. They get it for years of their life.
Except for one simple thing. It's not Cook's job to manage shareholder value. It's Cook's job to run the company so that it continues to grow. So far, he has done a commendable job of doing that - in spite of all the whining from people like you.
Apple has said that they're considering what to do with the money. That is different than 'publicly admitting that they have too much'.
Simply handing it out left and right is probably the stupidest thing they can do with it.
No one ever claimed that it would be a 1 for 1 replacement for Fidelity, so please stop making stupid straw man arguments.
I believe it would help (and most people who study the market would agree). I never said how much it would help. It might make up for 10% of what Fidelity sold or it might be 5 times what Fidelity sold. But it is clear that it would help. It would bring some people into the market who do not currently buy Apple stock. That would apply upward pressure to the price. I don't think there's anyone who could predict how much, but it would help.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Except for one simple thing. It's not Cook's job to manage shareholder value. It's Cook's job to run the company so that it continues to grow. So far, he has done a commendable job of doing that - in spite of all the whining from people like you.
Apple has said that they're considering what to do with the money. That is different than 'publicly admitting that they have too much'.
Simply handing it out left and right is probably the stupidest thing they can do with it.
No one ever claimed that it would be a 1 for 1 replacement for Fidelity, so please stop making stupid straw man arguments.
I believe it would help (and most people who study the market would agree). I never said how much it would help. It might make up for 10% of what Fidelity sold or it might be 5 times what Fidelity sold. But it is clear that it would help. It would bring some people into the market who do not currently buy Apple stock. That would apply upward pressure to the price. I don't think there's anyone who could predict how much, but it would help.
1. It IS Cook's job to manage shareholder value. It is his ONLY job. The only thing that makes it unclear is that he is managing the long-term value, and if he makes a credible argument that what he is doing now is in the interest of such value, then the short-term oscillations in the stock price can be ignored. He has not made such an argument, and the dive in Apple's share price is now "medium-term", as opposed to short term.
2. Saying "they are considering what to do with the money" does say that they are aware there is a problem, but has no further information (sort of like "I have no statement to make at this time").
3. Handing it out is far from stupid. The Einhorn proposal or a buyback might be more intelligent, that's true, but it does not mean that upping the dividend is stupid.
4. The split idea would (a) do nothing and (b) would be an admission of weakness. Notice that Apple's tech brethren GOOG and AMZN have been going onward and upward without any such machinations.