$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.
Under Tim Cook management Apple lost $250 BILLION since the introduction of disastrous iPhone 5 (I hear Apple zealots screaming, what?! iPhone 5 is the best selling phone. Yes, and still it is a HUGE under-performer thanks to its tiny screen, unreliable iCloud services, and iOS Fatigue). But this is a wrong place to post any objective critique of Apple. The forum somewhat degenerated to a total control by blinded Apple zealots, who in sheer disrespect to Steve Jobs, sing praises to gutless Tim Cook, who continues to destroy the shareholder value. They are willing to lose their shirt investing in a company that over a year ago lost its course... instead of admitting the obvious - Apple under Tim Cook sucks.
Under Tim Cook management Apple lost $250 BILLION since the introduction of disastrous iPhone 5
Absolutely, totally false. Apple didn't lose a thing. Apple SHAREHOLDERS lost $250 B. If you can't get even that most basic fact right, you have no business entering a discussion on AAPL.
Furthermore, even the shareholder loss is not a loss of anything tangible about AAPL. It was a drop in perceptions, not reality.
(I hear Apple zealots screaming, what?! iPhone 5 is the best selling phone.
Because it is.
Oh, and btw, how do you respond to the fact that the latest report is that the iPhone 5 and the next 2 phones were both largely designed under Jobs? How does that fit with your Jobs-worship?
Yes, and still it is a HUGE under-performer thanks to its tiny screen, unreliable iCloud services, and iOS Fatigue).
No, that's what the whiners, Apple haters, and stock manipulators say. In the real world, the iPhone 5 remains at the top of the charts for customer satisfaction. So the customers obviously aren't disappointed.
Funny how the people who are disappointed are the haters and people who probably never owned an Apple product in their lives.
But this is a wrong place to post any objective critique of Apple. The forum somewhat degenerated to a total control by blinded Apple zealots,
Well, no. Everyone here is interested in reasoned, intelligent discussion. The problem is that trolls like you have destroyed the forum with your incessant, hate-filled, fact-free whining.
who in sheer disrespect to Steve Jobs, sing praises to gutless Tim Cook, who continues to destroy the shareholder value. They are willing to lose their shirt investing in a company that over a year ago lost its course...
Yet its current products and even the next couple of generations were designed under Jobs. So much for your theory.
Oh, and btw, if the company has lost its course, please explain how they had record sales and profits AGAIN last quarter.
instead of admitting the obvious - Apple under Tim Cook sucks.
Since that's just nonsense from someone who doesn't understand even the most basic elements of business and has absolutely no facts to back it up, no one really cares what you think.
You have stated that you believe it would be beneficial for the performance of AAPL if the proportion of stock owned by individuals was increased relative to the proportion owned by institutions. If you don't replace the institutionally owned shares with individual investor owned shares by at least one to one, how are you going to change the relative proportions? I was really asking you to justify your own argument more than making a new one of my own. Call it a straw man if you want, as long as you take ownership..
Take at least a junior high level finance course before you spout off, OK?
You don't need to replace ALL of Fidelity's holdings with private purchase (your 'one to one' assertion) to change the ratio. If even ONE of Fidelity's shares was purchased by an individual, that would change the ratio.
Furthermore, you don't understand the simply concept of share sales. Every share that Fidelity sold already had a buyer, so EVEN ONE new buyer puts upward pressure on the share price.
The shareholders don't get to decide whether or not Apple's employees get paid.
Funny how they're not doing that then, huh?
Then screw the market. I'll go with common sense instead.
I don't know that anyone from Apple is doing that. Don't claim they are.
See, you made that up. You. Don't claim that someone else believes something sane, much less insane.
Yes, the shareholders (via the board) only care about strategic issues. So, they can demand that the company institute layoffs, but they are not going to be the ones writing the pink slips.
As for the market, by definition, the market is the arbiter of COMMON sense.
Funny how the people who are disappointed are the haters and people who probably never owned an Apple product in their lives.
This is ridiculous. Just google: Appleution blog, and you will see that I foresaw Apple-led revolution back in 2005, way before iPhone-era. I had such a high-price on AAPL, which was trading mere $35 at that time that people called me crazy. As the Apple-led revolution in consumer electronics unveiled I owned essentially every Apple product: from iPod Shuffle to liquid-cooled Mac Pro to iPads to iPhones. Time and time again, they proved to me that AAPL is heading higher and higher. And for 7 years I had been telling people to go long on AAPL and hold on to their shares….
But from mid-2012, the serious flaws in Apple and its products started to worry me. iPhone 5 was the clear watershed that screamed to me the obvious – Tim Cook has no sense of products and AAPL is destined to fall. Shortly after the release of iPhone 5, I made my second forecast: AAPL is heading to $300 and the board will oust Tim Cook before 2014 is over, may be sooner. It sounded absolutely insane back then but, despite all the screams of numerous and disturbed Apple zealots, the current AAPL price is closer to $300 than it is to its peak.
I have offered a simple bet: If AAPL stays above $400 this year, I pay $400. If AAPL falls below $400, you pay me $400. So far Apple zealots span tons of demagogy but no takers.
This is ridiculous. Just google: Appleution blog, and you will see that I foresaw Apple-led revolution back in 2005, way before iPhone-era. I had such a high-price on AAPL, which was trading mere $35 at that time that people called me crazy. As the Apple-led revolution in consumer electronics unveiled I owned essentially every Apple product: from iPod Shuffle to liquid-cooled Mac Pro to iPads to iPhones. Time and time again, they proved to me that AAPL is heading higher and higher. And for 7 years I had been telling people to go long on AAPL and hold on to their shares….
But from mid-2012, the serious flaws in Apple and its products started to worry me. iPhone 5 was the clear watershed that screamed to me the obvious – Tim Cook has no sense of products and AAPL is destined to fall. Shortly after the release of iPhone 5, I made my second forecast: AAPL is heading to $300 and the board will oust Tim Cook before 2014 is over, may be sooner. It sounded absolutely insane back then but, despite all the screams of numerous and disturbed Apple zealots, the current AAPL price is closer to $300 than it is to its peak.
I have offered a simple bet: If AAPL stays above $400 this year, I pay $400. If AAPL falls below $400, you pay me $400. So far Apple zealots span tons of demagogy but no takers.
Even if you really were the one who predicted Apple's growth in the past, how does that justify your inane post which demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of business? All it would do is demonstrate that you made one lucky guess.
Your post clearly demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about - and I notice that you still haven't managed to refute a single comment I made.
Even if you really were the one who predicted Apple's growth in the past, how does that justify your inane post which demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of business? All it would do is demonstrate that you made one lucky guess.
Your post clearly demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about - and I notice that you still haven't managed to refute a single comment I made.
Your views are passionate but naïve. Thinking that record profits mean the company is doing everything right is deeply flawed. What matters is not the increasing profits but the rate of increase (i.e. not the first but the second derivative of the share price). And it has been negative for a while. This is almost like a death sentence to any stock, and, especially to such a heavy-weight as AAPL
Another mistake you make is when you think the prior approval by Steve Jobs of iPhone 5 design means that he would have Okayed its eventual release. NO! Jobs was known to turn 180 degrees on his own words. His loyalty was not to his past statements but to one thing only – to make the best product. And by late 2011 it became clear that the market is heading to larger screens because they make smartphones easier to use (as the primary functionality moves from “talking to” to “interacting with.”) And Jobs would do anything and everything to make Apple products the easiest to use. But not Tim Cook. The guy just does not get it. And neither local Apple zealots.
Your views are passionate but naïve. Thinking that record profits mean the company is doing everything right is deeply flawed. What matters is not the increasing profits but the rate of increase (i.e. not the first but the second derivative of the share price). And it has been negative for a while. This is almost like a death sentence to any stock, and, especially to such a heavy-weight as AAPL
Another mistake you make is when you think the prior approval by Steve Jobs of iPhone 5 design means that he would have Okayed its eventual release. NO! Jobs was known to turn 180 degrees on his own words. His loyalty was not to his past statements but to one thing only – to make the best product. And by late 2011 it became clear that the market is heading to larger screens because they make smartphones easier to use (as the primary functionality moves from “talking to” to “interacting with.”) And Jobs would do anything and everything to make Apple products the easiest to use. But not Tim Cook. The guy just does not get it. And neither local Apple zealots.
Just a question: Steve died a few days after the iPhone 5 release, so I assume he did actually have input (the phone presumably went into production a few months before). How does that jive with your comments?
Just a question: Steve died a few days after the iPhone 5 release, so I assume he did actually have input (the phone presumably went into production a few months before). How does that jive with your comments?
You are confusing iPhone 4S with iPhone 5. Tim Cook had almost a year after Jobs death to make iPhone 5 the easiest smartphone to use and take AAPL even higher. Instead, he failed on four fronts, which I will not go into here. If you care just google: Apple DNA principles and see my forecast and reasons underlying it.
Your views are passionate but naïve. Thinking that record profits mean the company is doing everything right is deeply flawed. What matters is not the increasing profits but the rate of increase (i.e. not the first but the second derivative of the share price). And it has been negative for a while. This is almost like a death sentence to any stock, and, especially to such a heavy-weight as AAPL
Well, no.
What matters is the perception of a company's net present value of the return of the shares compared to other investments you can make. Even if Apple's growth rate drops to the level of the market as a whole (which it is a long way from doing), it is still less than half the price it should be.
The problem is irrational arguments that "Apple used to grow by 50% per year and it's only growing 15% per year, so it's doomed". That makes no sense at all. One would expect percentage growth rates to decline as a company grows.
Another mistake you make is when you think the prior approval by Steve Jobs of iPhone 5 design means that he would have Okayed its eventual release. NO! Jobs was known to turn 180 degrees on his own words. His loyalty was not to his past statements but to one thing only – to make the best product. And by late 2011 it became clear that the market is heading to larger screens because they make smartphones easier to use (as the primary functionality moves from “talking to” to “interacting with.”) And Jobs would do anything and everything to make Apple products the easiest to use. But not Tim Cook. The guy just does not get it. And neither local Apple zealots.
More of your unsupported inane rambling. Care to provide some evidence to back any of that up? And since the iPhone 5 would have been in essentially final form before Jobs died, where's your evidence that Jobs would not have approved it?
For that matter, just what about the phone do you consider to be a massive failure? There are no major reported hardware problems with the phone. There are no major reported software problems with the phone. And customer satisfaction with the phone continues to be at the top of the charts. So what is it that you 'know' that the rest of Apple - and millions of Apple's customers - doesn't know?
I own several Mac Pros, I look forward to the product line being refreshed for the first time in 3+ years, Any Year Now. And I know at least 150 other people who will be super-excited about that fact.
Overall impact on Apple's bottom-line: Mac Pro makes up something like less than .001% of the bottom line, they make more money selling iPod socks, which is why they seemingly can't be bothered to update the thing.
Having said all that, there is no excuse for just dumping pro users and kicking them to the curb, but this is the wrong forum for an extended rant on that topic. So far as their stock goes, I enjoyed the APPL long, ride up, and stepped off the train-wreck when it fell below $650. If Jony Ive shows anything interesting and there's still a heartbeat there, I will reload on APPL. If not, then they are well on their decades long journey into obscurity and oblivion, and just got in line behind Microsoft.
Having said all that, Apple the tech company is far from doomed, I have no intentions of replacing my Apple gear with anything else, because there isn't a viable alternative to jump ship to. Apple has decades left to sort things out. But, the stock market is almost completely decoupled from reality, and I'm not sure I can think of anybody even marginally sane, who sits there and watches their net worth deflate from $700/share, down to scraping the $400s. Seriously, who does that? I'm used to checking my APPL stock, seeing the Doom & Gloom & Recession forecast for the rest of the world, while Apple's reality distortion field keeps going, and my stock keeps going up. Right now, it's the exact opposite. I realize people buy stock for a large variety of bizarre and emotional reasons, but I'm here for the money.
On the other side of that equation, buying back in at $400, if Jony Ive demonstrates he can actually do something, anything revolutionary/bordering on disruptive technology, without Steve Jobs there screaming at everybody. Hoping for the best, expecting the worst.
You are confusing iPhone 4S with iPhone 5. Tim Cook had almost a year after Jobs death to make iPhone 5 the easiest smartphone to use and take AAPL even higher. Instead, he failed on four fronts, which I will not go into here. If you care just google: Apple DNA principles and see my forecast and reasons underlying it.
I own several Mac Pros, I look forward to the product line being refreshed for the first time in 3+ years, Any Year Now. And I know at least 150 other people who will be super-excited about that fact.
Overall impact on Apple's bottom-line: Mac Pro makes up something like less than .001% of the bottom line, they make more money selling iPod socks, which is why they seemingly can't be bothered to update the thing.
Having said all that, there is no excuse for just dumping pro users and kicking them to the curb, but this is the wrong forum for an extended rant on that topic. So far as their stock goes, I enjoyed the APPL long, ride up, and stepped off the train-wreck when it fell below $650. If Jony Ive shows anything interesting and there's still a heartbeat there, I will reload on APPL. If not, then they are well on their decades long journey into obscurity and oblivion, and just got in line behind Microsoft.
Having said all that, Apple the tech company is far from doomed, I have no intentions of replacing my Apple gear with anything else, because there isn't a viable alternative to jump ship to. Apple has decades left to sort things out. But, the stock market is almost completely decoupled from reality, and I'm not sure I can think of anybody even marginally sane, who sits there and watches their net worth deflate from $700/share, down to scraping the $400s. Seriously, who does that? I'm used to checking my APPL stock, seeing the Doom & Gloom & Recession forecast for the rest of the world, while Apple's reality distortion field keeps going, and my stock keeps going up. Right now, it's the exact opposite. I realize people buy stock for a large variety of bizarre and emotional reasons, but I'm here for the money.
On the other side of that equation, buying back in at $400, if Jony Ive demonstrates he can actually do something, anything revolutionary/bordering on disruptive technology, without Steve Jobs there screaming at everybody. Hoping for the best, expecting the worst.
Since from what I gather Apple is trying to be nice to all the pro video people ticked off by Final Cut X, I assume a new Mac Pro is not too far away...
You have stated that you believe it would be beneficial for the performance of AAPL if the proportion of stock owned by individuals was increased relative to the proportion owned by institutions. If you don't replace the institutionally owned shares with individual investor owned shares by at least one to one, how are you going to change the relative proportions? I was really asking you to justify your own argument more than making a new one of my own. Call it a straw man if you want, as long as you take ownership..
Take at least a junior high level finance course before you spout off, OK?
You don't need to replace ALL of Fidelity's holdings with private purchase (your 'one to one' assertion) to change the ratio. If even ONE of Fidelity's shares was purchased by an individual, that would change the ratio.
Furthermore, you don't understand the simply concept of share sales. Every share that Fidelity sold already had a buyer, so EVEN ONE new buyer puts upward pressure on the share price.
That's what I get for trying to post while watching Game of Thrones. I started posting and then went to review some of your previous posts, where you claimed that Apple should encourage individual investors, since they are more likely to hold on to their shares than institutions. This is nonsense, and I started thinking about how individual investors would have to buy more shares than they sold to make any headway. Then I continued my post and conflated those thoughts with the discussion of how Fidelity sold a chunk of their AAPL holdings.
It is a shame I made this mistake, not only because it gave you an opportunity (which you never pass up) to pollute the forum with one of your condescending insults, but because it allowed you to create a smokescreen for avoiding addressing the main points of my post. You understandably edited out the part where I asked you to reveal how many micro-investors there were and how they could buy AAPL in enough volume to have a material effect on the stock price. I don't think you ever will, because I demonstrated to you just how wacky your idea is. If you want to propose your hypothetical numbers and prove me wrong, I will accept another of your insults without complaint.
That's what I get for trying to post while watching Game of Thrones. I started posting and then went to review some of your previous posts, where you claimed that Apple should encourage individual investors, since they are more likely to hold on to their shares than institutions. This is nonsense, and I started thinking about how individual investors would have to buy more shares than they sold to make any headway. Then I continued my post and conflated those thoughts with the discussion of how Fidelity sold a chunk of their AAPL holdings.
It is a shame I made this mistake, not only because it gave you an opportunity (which you never pass up) to pollute the forum with one of your condescending insults, but because it allowed you to create a smokescreen for avoiding addressing the main points of my post. You understandably edited out the part where I asked you to reveal how many micro-investors there were and how they could buy AAPL in enough volume to have a material effect on the stock price. I don't think you ever will, because I demonstrated to you just how wacky your idea is. If you want to propose your hypothetical numbers and prove me wrong, I will accept another of your insults without complaint.
IOW, you were flat out wrong and your entire point was unfounded, yet you still go on the attack.
It's simple. If the share price were lower, more individual investors would buy the stock. It would presumably have no impact on the number of institutional investors buying the stock. More buyers, no change in demand equals higher price. Nothing wacky about that.
No one can predict how much it would affect the price, but the effect would be to increase the price. No matter how many silly nonsense stories you come up with.
IOW, you were flat out wrong and your entire point was unfounded, yet you still go on the attack.
It's simple. If the share price were lower, more individual investors would buy the stock. It would presumably have no impact on the number of institutional investors buying the stock. More buyers, no change in demand equals higher price. Nothing wacky about that.
No one can predict how much it would affect the price, but the effect would be to increase the price. No matter how many silly nonsense stories you come up with.
The numbers are underwhelming, and Apple's split would do a lot worse than the average, since usually splits come after a big run up in stock price (so are a way to continue the momentum slightly), and are usually coupled with higher dividends. To summarize: enough already with the split.
The numbers are underwhelming, and Apple's split would do a lot worse than the average, since usually splits come after a big run up in stock price (so are a way to continue the momentum slightly), and are usually coupled with higher dividends. To summarize: enough already with the split.
Sorry, but there's nothing average about AAPL. The price is at least 10 times higher than the average stock (probably more like 50 times higher). The P/E is less than half of the average stock.
Expecting it to behave the same way as a $0.50 share that is splitting in order to pawn off more shares on unsuspecting investors is ridiculous.
The closest analogy is Berkshire Hathaway B shares which were $3500 per share before being split 50:1 in January 2010. The stock rose about 30% in the next year, while the Dow was up only about 10%.
I trust Warren Buffett infinitely more than the trolls posting here.
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.
I am usually just a lurker, but I had to comment on this.
Tim Cook's job is to make sure the company is headed down the best path possible. To make sure all the teams are united to a common goal. And that goal is most certainly NOT shareholder value. It is to produce the BEST PRODUCTS POSSIBLE. Not the products that make the most money, not the products that "know-it-all" bloggers say they need to make or get trampled by the competition. To make fantastic products.
As a shareholder, I want to see the price go up. But we will see it go back up as people realize how great the products are, and buy them year after year.
Every product I try to buy (most recently the new 27" iMac, which is the most amazing machine I have ever had), I have to wait weeks/months to get because of demand.
Everyone is trying to emulate, copy, or flat out steal what Apple is doing.
Every quarter they make more money then they ever have before.
The war chest continues to grow
These are only the signs of a hugely successful company, and Mr. Cook, I applaud you.
I am usually just a lurker, but I had to comment on this.
Tim Cook's job is to make sure the company is headed down the best path possible. To make sure all the teams are united to a common goal. And that goal is most certainly NOT shareholder value. It is to produce the BEST PRODUCTS POSSIBLE. Not the products that make the most money, not the products that "know-it-all" bloggers say they need to make or get trampled by the competition. To make fantastic products.
Well, you're sorta right and mostly wrong.
The goal of any company is to increase shareholder value. It does this by making the most profitable products it can in whatever its market and area of expertise is. Some companies (Apple being one of them) have chosen a strategy of making great technology products.
So, the first goal is to increase shareholder value. The other goals (next profit, after that making great products) are goals in service of the first.
The bottom line is that Apple can make the greatest products on the planet, but they cannot sell them profitably they will soon be out of business and no longer making any products at all.
In fact, Apple could make even better products than it does right now if profit was no concern. It would use the absolutely best materials and best processes all regardless of cost and deliver even better products. But it doesn't do this because profit is a requirement.
Further, if they stop making profit (even only breaking even) or lower levels of profit, investors will retract their investment in Apple and invest their capital in other ventures that provide a greater profit.
So, the first goal is to increase shareholder value. The other goals (next profit, after that making great products) are goals in service of the first.
It's not, because that would mean their primary goal is to service shareholders even if that meant the decisions were detrimental to the success of the company e.g depleting cash reserves to pay investors. The primary goal of the staff at Apple is towards the success of the company itself and shareholders come second. Shareholders can't exist without the company surviving so the most important goal is the success of the company.
The bottom line is that Apple can make the greatest products on the planet, but they cannot sell them profitably they will soon be out of business and no longer making any products at all.
Further, if they stop making profit (even only breaking even) or lower levels of profit, investors will retract their investment in Apple and invest their capital in other ventures that provide a greater profit.
Why does this keep coming up? How quickly do you think the most profitable company in the world is going to become unprofitable and 'soon be out of business'? It's the weirdest kind of fear-mongering clearly designed to try and encourage Apple to make bad decisions for the company to boost the profile of AAPL towards investors. It's like saying McDonalds serves around 70 million people per day but y'know if tomorrow people decide they don't want a burger, they don't make any money so they need new management and should think about making a 50c burger for emerging markets. It's totally absurd reasoning.
Apple is selling more devices than ever, they are making more profits than ever in a poor economy and more profits than any company in the world and yet people ponder about their near-term collapse. Their iPad shipments are up nearly 50% over last year. The potential iPad market is huge.
Who else in this industry is holding ~40% gross margins and 20-25% net margins? Likely nobody, so what's the problem? The problem is that investors are not happy with the stock price drop (which they ultimately control anyway) and in spite of the price rising from $420 to $700 in under a year under Tim's management and dropping back to $420 in under a year under Tim's management, claim that Tim is the problem and needs to either get out or do better by making cheaper, lower margin products (which is silly because it obviously makes matters worse).
If anybody has any suggestions about what they should be doing to be better than making more profit than anyone the world, I'm sure they'll be all ears. Vague suggestions like 'be more innovative', 'make a watch/TV/cheap phone' or 'give investors more money' are not good enough reasons to ensure the success of the company, which is their primary goal. They are doing a pretty awesome job at it and if people started acknowledging that, instead of spreading bad news around, then maybe the stock price would go back up.
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.
Under Tim Cook management Apple lost $250 BILLION since the introduction of disastrous iPhone 5 (I hear Apple zealots screaming, what?! iPhone 5 is the best selling phone. Yes, and still it is a HUGE under-performer thanks to its tiny screen, unreliable iCloud services, and iOS Fatigue). But this is a wrong place to post any objective critique of Apple. The forum somewhat degenerated to a total control by blinded Apple zealots, who in sheer disrespect to Steve Jobs, sing praises to gutless Tim Cook, who continues to destroy the shareholder value. They are willing to lose their shirt investing in a company that over a year ago lost its course... instead of admitting the obvious - Apple under Tim Cook sucks.
Absolutely, totally false. Apple didn't lose a thing. Apple SHAREHOLDERS lost $250 B. If you can't get even that most basic fact right, you have no business entering a discussion on AAPL.
Furthermore, even the shareholder loss is not a loss of anything tangible about AAPL. It was a drop in perceptions, not reality.
Because it is.
Oh, and btw, how do you respond to the fact that the latest report is that the iPhone 5 and the next 2 phones were both largely designed under Jobs? How does that fit with your Jobs-worship?
No, that's what the whiners, Apple haters, and stock manipulators say. In the real world, the iPhone 5 remains at the top of the charts for customer satisfaction. So the customers obviously aren't disappointed.
Funny how the people who are disappointed are the haters and people who probably never owned an Apple product in their lives.
Well, no. Everyone here is interested in reasoned, intelligent discussion. The problem is that trolls like you have destroyed the forum with your incessant, hate-filled, fact-free whining.
Yet its current products and even the next couple of generations were designed under Jobs. So much for your theory.
Oh, and btw, if the company has lost its course, please explain how they had record sales and profits AGAIN last quarter.
Since that's just nonsense from someone who doesn't understand even the most basic elements of business and has absolutely no facts to back it up, no one really cares what you think.
Take at least a junior high level finance course before you spout off, OK?
You don't need to replace ALL of Fidelity's holdings with private purchase (your 'one to one' assertion) to change the ratio. If even ONE of Fidelity's shares was purchased by an individual, that would change the ratio.
Furthermore, you don't understand the simply concept of share sales. Every share that Fidelity sold already had a buyer, so EVEN ONE new buyer puts upward pressure on the share price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
The shareholders don't get to decide whether or not Apple's employees get paid.
Funny how they're not doing that then, huh?
Then screw the market. I'll go with common sense instead.
I don't know that anyone from Apple is doing that. Don't claim they are.
See, you made that up. You. Don't claim that someone else believes something sane, much less insane.
Yes, the shareholders (via the board) only care about strategic issues. So, they can demand that the company institute layoffs, but they are not going to be the ones writing the pink slips.
As for the market, by definition, the market is the arbiter of COMMON sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Funny how the people who are disappointed are the haters and people who probably never owned an Apple product in their lives.
This is ridiculous. Just google: Appleution blog, and you will see that I foresaw Apple-led revolution back in 2005, way before iPhone-era. I had such a high-price on AAPL, which was trading mere $35 at that time that people called me crazy. As the Apple-led revolution in consumer electronics unveiled I owned essentially every Apple product: from iPod Shuffle to liquid-cooled Mac Pro to iPads to iPhones. Time and time again, they proved to me that AAPL is heading higher and higher. And for 7 years I had been telling people to go long on AAPL and hold on to their shares….
But from mid-2012, the serious flaws in Apple and its products started to worry me. iPhone 5 was the clear watershed that screamed to me the obvious – Tim Cook has no sense of products and AAPL is destined to fall. Shortly after the release of iPhone 5, I made my second forecast: AAPL is heading to $300 and the board will oust Tim Cook before 2014 is over, may be sooner. It sounded absolutely insane back then but, despite all the screams of numerous and disturbed Apple zealots, the current AAPL price is closer to $300 than it is to its peak.
I have offered a simple bet: If AAPL stays above $400 this year, I pay $400. If AAPL falls below $400, you pay me $400. So far Apple zealots span tons of demagogy but no takers.
Even if you really were the one who predicted Apple's growth in the past, how does that justify your inane post which demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of business? All it would do is demonstrate that you made one lucky guess.
Your post clearly demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about - and I notice that you still haven't managed to refute a single comment I made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Even if you really were the one who predicted Apple's growth in the past, how does that justify your inane post which demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of business? All it would do is demonstrate that you made one lucky guess.
Your post clearly demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about - and I notice that you still haven't managed to refute a single comment I made.
Your views are passionate but naïve. Thinking that record profits mean the company is doing everything right is deeply flawed. What matters is not the increasing profits but the rate of increase (i.e. not the first but the second derivative of the share price). And it has been negative for a while. This is almost like a death sentence to any stock, and, especially to such a heavy-weight as AAPL
Another mistake you make is when you think the prior approval by Steve Jobs of iPhone 5 design means that he would have Okayed its eventual release. NO! Jobs was known to turn 180 degrees on his own words. His loyalty was not to his past statements but to one thing only – to make the best product. And by late 2011 it became clear that the market is heading to larger screens because they make smartphones easier to use (as the primary functionality moves from “talking to” to “interacting with.”) And Jobs would do anything and everything to make Apple products the easiest to use. But not Tim Cook. The guy just does not get it. And neither local Apple zealots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by enature
Your views are passionate but naïve. Thinking that record profits mean the company is doing everything right is deeply flawed. What matters is not the increasing profits but the rate of increase (i.e. not the first but the second derivative of the share price). And it has been negative for a while. This is almost like a death sentence to any stock, and, especially to such a heavy-weight as AAPL
Another mistake you make is when you think the prior approval by Steve Jobs of iPhone 5 design means that he would have Okayed its eventual release. NO! Jobs was known to turn 180 degrees on his own words. His loyalty was not to his past statements but to one thing only – to make the best product. And by late 2011 it became clear that the market is heading to larger screens because they make smartphones easier to use (as the primary functionality moves from “talking to” to “interacting with.”) And Jobs would do anything and everything to make Apple products the easiest to use. But not Tim Cook. The guy just does not get it. And neither local Apple zealots.
Just a question: Steve died a few days after the iPhone 5 release, so I assume he did actually have input (the phone presumably went into production a few months before). How does that jive with your comments?
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
Just a question: Steve died a few days after the iPhone 5 release, so I assume he did actually have input (the phone presumably went into production a few months before). How does that jive with your comments?
You are confusing iPhone 4S with iPhone 5. Tim Cook had almost a year after Jobs death to make iPhone 5 the easiest smartphone to use and take AAPL even higher. Instead, he failed on four fronts, which I will not go into here. If you care just google: Apple DNA principles and see my forecast and reasons underlying it.
Well, no.
What matters is the perception of a company's net present value of the return of the shares compared to other investments you can make. Even if Apple's growth rate drops to the level of the market as a whole (which it is a long way from doing), it is still less than half the price it should be.
The problem is irrational arguments that "Apple used to grow by 50% per year and it's only growing 15% per year, so it's doomed". That makes no sense at all. One would expect percentage growth rates to decline as a company grows.
More of your unsupported inane rambling. Care to provide some evidence to back any of that up? And since the iPhone 5 would have been in essentially final form before Jobs died, where's your evidence that Jobs would not have approved it?
For that matter, just what about the phone do you consider to be a massive failure? There are no major reported hardware problems with the phone. There are no major reported software problems with the phone. And customer satisfaction with the phone continues to be at the top of the charts. So what is it that you 'know' that the rest of Apple - and millions of Apple's customers - doesn't know?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Wall Street doesn't give a shit about MacPro.
I own several Mac Pros, I look forward to the product line being refreshed for the first time in 3+ years, Any Year Now. And I know at least 150 other people who will be super-excited about that fact.
Overall impact on Apple's bottom-line: Mac Pro makes up something like less than .001% of the bottom line, they make more money selling iPod socks, which is why they seemingly can't be bothered to update the thing.
Having said all that, there is no excuse for just dumping pro users and kicking them to the curb, but this is the wrong forum for an extended rant on that topic. So far as their stock goes, I enjoyed the APPL long, ride up, and stepped off the train-wreck when it fell below $650. If Jony Ive shows anything interesting and there's still a heartbeat there, I will reload on APPL. If not, then they are well on their decades long journey into obscurity and oblivion, and just got in line behind Microsoft.
Having said all that, Apple the tech company is far from doomed, I have no intentions of replacing my Apple gear with anything else, because there isn't a viable alternative to jump ship to. Apple has decades left to sort things out. But, the stock market is almost completely decoupled from reality, and I'm not sure I can think of anybody even marginally sane, who sits there and watches their net worth deflate from $700/share, down to scraping the $400s. Seriously, who does that? I'm used to checking my APPL stock, seeing the Doom & Gloom & Recession forecast for the rest of the world, while Apple's reality distortion field keeps going, and my stock keeps going up. Right now, it's the exact opposite. I realize people buy stock for a large variety of bizarre and emotional reasons, but I'm here for the money.
On the other side of that equation, buying back in at $400, if Jony Ive demonstrates he can actually do something, anything revolutionary/bordering on disruptive technology, without Steve Jobs there screaming at everybody. Hoping for the best, expecting the worst.
Quote:
Originally Posted by enature
You are confusing iPhone 4S with iPhone 5. Tim Cook had almost a year after Jobs death to make iPhone 5 the easiest smartphone to use and take AAPL even higher. Instead, he failed on four fronts, which I will not go into here. If you care just google: Apple DNA principles and see my forecast and reasons underlying it.
Yes, sorry, too sleep deprived (re 4S vs 5).
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardH
I own several Mac Pros, I look forward to the product line being refreshed for the first time in 3+ years, Any Year Now. And I know at least 150 other people who will be super-excited about that fact.
Overall impact on Apple's bottom-line: Mac Pro makes up something like less than .001% of the bottom line, they make more money selling iPod socks, which is why they seemingly can't be bothered to update the thing.
Having said all that, there is no excuse for just dumping pro users and kicking them to the curb, but this is the wrong forum for an extended rant on that topic. So far as their stock goes, I enjoyed the APPL long, ride up, and stepped off the train-wreck when it fell below $650. If Jony Ive shows anything interesting and there's still a heartbeat there, I will reload on APPL. If not, then they are well on their decades long journey into obscurity and oblivion, and just got in line behind Microsoft.
Having said all that, Apple the tech company is far from doomed, I have no intentions of replacing my Apple gear with anything else, because there isn't a viable alternative to jump ship to. Apple has decades left to sort things out. But, the stock market is almost completely decoupled from reality, and I'm not sure I can think of anybody even marginally sane, who sits there and watches their net worth deflate from $700/share, down to scraping the $400s. Seriously, who does that? I'm used to checking my APPL stock, seeing the Doom & Gloom & Recession forecast for the rest of the world, while Apple's reality distortion field keeps going, and my stock keeps going up. Right now, it's the exact opposite. I realize people buy stock for a large variety of bizarre and emotional reasons, but I'm here for the money.
On the other side of that equation, buying back in at $400, if Jony Ive demonstrates he can actually do something, anything revolutionary/bordering on disruptive technology, without Steve Jobs there screaming at everybody. Hoping for the best, expecting the worst.
Since from what I gather Apple is trying to be nice to all the pro video people ticked off by Final Cut X, I assume a new Mac Pro is not too far away...
That's what I get for trying to post while watching Game of Thrones. I started posting and then went to review some of your previous posts, where you claimed that Apple should encourage individual investors, since they are more likely to hold on to their shares than institutions. This is nonsense, and I started thinking about how individual investors would have to buy more shares than they sold to make any headway. Then I continued my post and conflated those thoughts with the discussion of how Fidelity sold a chunk of their AAPL holdings.
It is a shame I made this mistake, not only because it gave you an opportunity (which you never pass up) to pollute the forum with one of your condescending insults, but because it allowed you to create a smokescreen for avoiding addressing the main points of my post. You understandably edited out the part where I asked you to reveal how many micro-investors there were and how they could buy AAPL in enough volume to have a material effect on the stock price. I don't think you ever will, because I demonstrated to you just how wacky your idea is. If you want to propose your hypothetical numbers and prove me wrong, I will accept another of your insults without complaint.
IOW, you were flat out wrong and your entire point was unfounded, yet you still go on the attack.
It's simple. If the share price were lower, more individual investors would buy the stock. It would presumably have no impact on the number of institutional investors buying the stock. More buyers, no change in demand equals higher price. Nothing wacky about that.
No one can predict how much it would affect the price, but the effect would be to increase the price. No matter how many silly nonsense stories you come up with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
IOW, you were flat out wrong and your entire point was unfounded, yet you still go on the attack.
It's simple. If the share price were lower, more individual investors would buy the stock. It would presumably have no impact on the number of institutional investors buying the stock. More buyers, no change in demand equals higher price. Nothing wacky about that.
No one can predict how much it would affect the price, but the effect would be to increase the price. No matter how many silly nonsense stories you come up with.
Check this out:
http://www.thepatternsite.com/StockSplits.html
The numbers are underwhelming, and Apple's split would do a lot worse than the average, since usually splits come after a big run up in stock price (so are a way to continue the momentum slightly), and are usually coupled with higher dividends. To summarize: enough already with the split.
Sorry, but there's nothing average about AAPL. The price is at least 10 times higher than the average stock (probably more like 50 times higher). The P/E is less than half of the average stock.
Expecting it to behave the same way as a $0.50 share that is splitting in order to pawn off more shares on unsuspecting investors is ridiculous.
The closest analogy is Berkshire Hathaway B shares which were $3500 per share before being split 50:1 in January 2010. The stock rose about 30% in the next year, while the Dow was up only about 10%.
I trust Warren Buffett infinitely more than the trolls posting here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
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.
I am usually just a lurker, but I had to comment on this.
Tim Cook's job is to make sure the company is headed down the best path possible. To make sure all the teams are united to a common goal. And that goal is most certainly NOT shareholder value. It is to produce the BEST PRODUCTS POSSIBLE. Not the products that make the most money, not the products that "know-it-all" bloggers say they need to make or get trampled by the competition. To make fantastic products.
As a shareholder, I want to see the price go up. But we will see it go back up as people realize how great the products are, and buy them year after year.
Every product I try to buy (most recently the new 27" iMac, which is the most amazing machine I have ever had), I have to wait weeks/months to get because of demand.
Everyone is trying to emulate, copy, or flat out steal what Apple is doing.
Every quarter they make more money then they ever have before.
The war chest continues to grow
These are only the signs of a hugely successful company, and Mr. Cook, I applaud you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyberjedi
I am usually just a lurker, but I had to comment on this.
Tim Cook's job is to make sure the company is headed down the best path possible. To make sure all the teams are united to a common goal. And that goal is most certainly NOT shareholder value. It is to produce the BEST PRODUCTS POSSIBLE. Not the products that make the most money, not the products that "know-it-all" bloggers say they need to make or get trampled by the competition. To make fantastic products.
Well, you're sorta right and mostly wrong.
The goal of any company is to increase shareholder value. It does this by making the most profitable products it can in whatever its market and area of expertise is. Some companies (Apple being one of them) have chosen a strategy of making great technology products.
So, the first goal is to increase shareholder value. The other goals (next profit, after that making great products) are goals in service of the first.
The bottom line is that Apple can make the greatest products on the planet, but they cannot sell them profitably they will soon be out of business and no longer making any products at all.
In fact, Apple could make even better products than it does right now if profit was no concern. It would use the absolutely best materials and best processes all regardless of cost and deliver even better products. But it doesn't do this because profit is a requirement.
Further, if they stop making profit (even only breaking even) or lower levels of profit, investors will retract their investment in Apple and invest their capital in other ventures that provide a greater profit.
It's not, because that would mean their primary goal is to service shareholders even if that meant the decisions were detrimental to the success of the company e.g depleting cash reserves to pay investors. The primary goal of the staff at Apple is towards the success of the company itself and shareholders come second. Shareholders can't exist without the company surviving so the most important goal is the success of the company.
Why does this keep coming up? How quickly do you think the most profitable company in the world is going to become unprofitable and 'soon be out of business'? It's the weirdest kind of fear-mongering clearly designed to try and encourage Apple to make bad decisions for the company to boost the profile of AAPL towards investors. It's like saying McDonalds serves around 70 million people per day but y'know if tomorrow people decide they don't want a burger, they don't make any money so they need new management and should think about making a 50c burger for emerging markets. It's totally absurd reasoning.
Apple is selling more devices than ever, they are making more profits than ever in a poor economy and more profits than any company in the world and yet people ponder about their near-term collapse. Their iPad shipments are up nearly 50% over last year. The potential iPad market is huge.
Who else in this industry is holding ~40% gross margins and 20-25% net margins? Likely nobody, so what's the problem? The problem is that investors are not happy with the stock price drop (which they ultimately control anyway) and in spite of the price rising from $420 to $700 in under a year under Tim's management and dropping back to $420 in under a year under Tim's management, claim that Tim is the problem and needs to either get out or do better by making cheaper, lower margin products (which is silly because it obviously makes matters worse).
If anybody has any suggestions about what they should be doing to be better than making more profit than anyone the world, I'm sure they'll be all ears. Vague suggestions like 'be more innovative', 'make a watch/TV/cheap phone' or 'give investors more money' are not good enough reasons to ensure the success of the company, which is their primary goal. They are doing a pretty awesome job at it and if people started acknowledging that, instead of spreading bad news around, then maybe the stock price would go back up.