That's funny because the facts don't bear you out. When Tim took over the market cap was $348 Billion. It is right now over $408 billion. Now unless you use some sort of different math than the rest of the world the figure from today is 60 billion larger than the figure when he took over. Didn't actually expect me to look that up, did you?
Did I say market cap? I said the value of Apple. Do you know how to calculate the value of any company, including Apple? Its called enterprise value, which is market cap less net debt. Go look that up and tell me what you find. I'll repeat my statement as I know I am 100% correct that the value of Apple has decreased under Tim Cook. It is fact.
Maybe you simply don't understand company valuation. If someone wanted to buy Apple would they pay the market cap? Nope, they'd pay the enterprise value. Company A has mkt cap of $100 and debt of $0; Company B has market cap of $50 and debt of $60. No cash at either. Which company is worth more? In the real world its B, in your fantasy land its A. Go read a couple finance books before you respond and make yourself look even sillier.
Ah yes Enterprise value. The fools metric. Enterprise value tells you what it would cost to buy a debt laden company. It in no way implies that company is worth more. Running up excessive debt is not a sign of fiscal health. When the market cap of B drops to 0 because investors realize the model is unsustainable, you will still think the company is worth $60.
Did I say market cap? I said the value of Apple. Do you know how to calculate the value of any company, including Apple? Its called enterprise value, which is market cap less net debt. Go look that up and tell me what you find. I'll repeat my statement as I know I am 100% correct that the value of Apple has decreased under Tim Cook. It is fact.
Umm... and where are you getting your data to fit into the EV model? Your are simply F.O.S! Here is a chart that shows Apple's EV trend... and as you will note.... Apple's EV is higher today then it was under Steve.
Guess what? That's nearly $60 billion higher. Looks like you're wrong again! Please shift the goalpost to another supposed metric that shows AAPL is worth less now than before Tim Cook took over.
You are slow and not using your own mind as I know you know the 4/11/13 figure is wrong. Mkt cap is $409 billion today. They reported $137 billion of cash at year end. No debt, so net debt (debt less cash) is negative 137 billion. EV = mkt cap less net debt = 409-137 = 272 billion.
You are wrong, the site is wrong and you are embarrassing yourself.
Ah yes Enterprise value. The fools metric. Enterprise value tells you what it would cost to buy a debt laden company. It in no way implies that company is worth more. Running up excessive debt is not a sign of fiscal health. When the market cap of B drops to 0 because investors realize the model is unsustainable, you will still think the company is worth $60.
And considering I see multiple sources saying differing "enterprise value" it seems like he was just flailing around to try to find some metric that he could use to win. Because stock price is higher than any point before Tim Cook took over as CEO. Market cap is still $60 billion higher than before he took over. Revenues are larger than they ever were before he took over. The company has had its most profitable quarters ever under Tim Cook. One can go on and on about all the metrics that disprove him and the other trolls.
Ah yes Enterprise value. The fools metric. Enterprise value tells you what it would cost to buy a debt laden company. It in no way implies that company is worth more. Running up excessive debt is not a sign of fiscal health. When the market cap of B drops to 0 because investors realize the model is unsustainable, you will still think the company is worth $60.
Debt laden companies like Google, IBM, Pfizer, Intel that all have debt and one must use EV to compare value?
You are slow and not using your own mind as I know you know the 4/11/13 figure is wrong. Mkt cap is $409 billion today. They reported $137 billion of cash at year end. No debt, so net debt (debt less cash) is negative 137 billion. EV = mkt cap less net debt = 409-137 = 272 billion.
You are wrong, the site is wrong and you are embarrassing yourself.
So everyone is wrong but you, right? So Yahoo is also wrong when it says it's $357 billion? Why should I believe that your figures are right and everyone source I've found is wrong? Because you say so?
Originally Posted by extremeskater (Edited into points)
1. Not everyone is out to short Apple stock, that comment has become nothing more than a cheap catch phrase on this forum when people don't like what they hear.
2. The fact that Apple created a bottleneck at the end of 2012 this isn't that hard to grasp. An iMac that took forever to come out.
3. rMBP that has seen several price drops because it was overpriced and underpowered. A price drop mid cycle by Apple and added drops by authorized dealers. When was the last time Apple had to drop the price of a product mid cycle? Issue like these are the reason for the drop in stock.
1. When Apple are still making so much profit, why else would it seemingly be knocked & held lower than it was before compared to other shares that flying at the moment, compared to how the other co's are doing?
2. New mass manufacturing processes can have teething problems & some be harder to get right than others, compared to building 1 or 2 prototypes in labs, but once the problems are sorted...
3. Current financial climates? Done to help boost sales of more expensive models during these trying times? Not to mention things get cheaper to make once they are produced more & more, partly as a result of point 2?
And no, I have no shares in AAPL, unfortunately. Just saying why things could be.
I've still yet to see why this "EV" is the one and only definitive metric by which a company should be judged. Secondly, if it's "Finance 101" why are there so many varied calculations of it?
Apple on the other hand has been delaying releases, releasing products than can't meet demand or releasing half-baked apps such as maps.
This sentence basically summarizes your lies. Why not just post it instead?
Three straight earnings misses…
lol.
Nobody believes in Tim…
lol.
It is baffling that the analysts appear to have potentially been more in touch with what sales were doing than the CEO.
It's baffling that you think this is in any way the case.
Originally Posted by jdnc123
Why doesn't the company want to give consumers what they want.
Maybe if you stopped pretending that people want a larger display, you'd know the answer to that.
Originally Posted by jdnc123
Company A has mkt cap of $100 and debt of $0; Company B has market cap of $50 and debt of $60. No cash at either. Which company is worth more? In the real world its B, in your fantasy land its A.
Could you maybe explain how this makes any sense whatsoever?
You are slow and not using your own mind as I know you know the 4/11/13 figure is wrong. Mkt cap is $409 billion today. They reported $137 billion of cash at year end. No debt, so net debt (debt less cash) is negative 137 billion. EV = mkt cap less net debt = 409-137 = 272 billion.
You are wrong, the site is wrong and you are embarrassing yourself.
Well frak, I would have though debt to be bad thing. Looks like I can stop paying my bills.
But don't dare bring up the fact that all of these same issues (delays, supply constraints, poor product launches, etc.) happened numerous times under Steve Jobs because they get hand-waved away because "TEH EV IS LOWER NOW THAN BEFORE!! ZOMG!!!!".
It would be foolish to think that the iMac shortage in some way didn't impact the stock price. And no it's not only about iPhones it's about all iOS devices. Strong iPhone sales without strong iPad and iPad mini sales would cause the stock price to drop further. Wall Street cares about perception always have and always will.
Ok they care about iPhones and iPads. I still think they could give a shit less about Macs. Or if they care about them it's only the extent they can use them to push FUD and G&D. Case in point everyone focusing on IDC numbers when Gartner and NPD show completely different figures.
Well frak, I would have though debt to be bad thing. Looks like I can stop paying my bills.
And it's even debatable that his statement about EV being lower is even correct. All sites I can find that give historical trends on EV show it higher today than before Tim Cook took over. He was probably furiously searching for some random metric he could use to try to win his debate about how Apple is worse off now than before. Because having revenues double under your watch and having the most profitable quarters in company history clearly show that Tim Cook is failing at his job.
Well frak, I would have though debt to be bad thing. Looks like I can stop paying my bills.
So basically this guy is saying all that cash Apple is hoarding is a bad thing. Question is how would it be any different under Steve? Lets not forget the dividend happened under Tim's watch. And there weren't major acquisitions under Steve's watch so its highly unlikely Apple would have acquired Nexflix, Yahoo, Pandora or Twitter if Steve was still around.
Comments
Ah yes Enterprise value. The fools metric. Enterprise value tells you what it would cost to buy a debt laden company. It in no way implies that company is worth more. Running up excessive debt is not a sign of fiscal health. When the market cap of B drops to 0 because investors realize the model is unsustainable, you will still think the company is worth $60.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdnc123
Did I say market cap? I said the value of Apple. Do you know how to calculate the value of any company, including Apple? Its called enterprise value, which is market cap less net debt. Go look that up and tell me what you find. I'll repeat my statement as I know I am 100% correct that the value of Apple has decreased under Tim Cook. It is fact.
Umm... and where are you getting your data to fit into the EV model? Your are simply F.O.S! Here is a chart that shows Apple's EV trend... and as you will note.... Apple's EV is higher today then it was under Steve.
http://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/enterprise_value
Quote:
Originally Posted by Applelunatic
Just to respond to this again from: http://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/enterprise_value
August 23rd 2011 EV is $333.40 billion.
April 11th, 2013 EV is $392.88 billion.
Guess what? That's nearly $60 billion higher. Looks like you're wrong again! Please shift the goalpost to another supposed metric that shows AAPL is worth less now than before Tim Cook took over.
You are slow and not using your own mind as I know you know the 4/11/13 figure is wrong. Mkt cap is $409 billion today. They reported $137 billion of cash at year end. No debt, so net debt (debt less cash) is negative 137 billion. EV = mkt cap less net debt = 409-137 = 272 billion.
You are wrong, the site is wrong and you are embarrassing yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel
Ah yes Enterprise value. The fools metric. Enterprise value tells you what it would cost to buy a debt laden company. It in no way implies that company is worth more. Running up excessive debt is not a sign of fiscal health. When the market cap of B drops to 0 because investors realize the model is unsustainable, you will still think the company is worth $60.
And considering I see multiple sources saying differing "enterprise value" it seems like he was just flailing around to try to find some metric that he could use to win. Because stock price is higher than any point before Tim Cook took over as CEO. Market cap is still $60 billion higher than before he took over. Revenues are larger than they ever were before he took over. The company has had its most profitable quarters ever under Tim Cook. One can go on and on about all the metrics that disprove him and the other trolls.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel
Ah yes Enterprise value. The fools metric. Enterprise value tells you what it would cost to buy a debt laden company. It in no way implies that company is worth more. Running up excessive debt is not a sign of fiscal health. When the market cap of B drops to 0 because investors realize the model is unsustainable, you will still think the company is worth $60.
Debt laden companies like Google, IBM, Pfizer, Intel that all have debt and one must use EV to compare value?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdnc123
You are slow and not using your own mind as I know you know the 4/11/13 figure is wrong. Mkt cap is $409 billion today. They reported $137 billion of cash at year end. No debt, so net debt (debt less cash) is negative 137 billion. EV = mkt cap less net debt = 409-137 = 272 billion.
You are wrong, the site is wrong and you are embarrassing yourself.
So everyone is wrong but you, right? So Yahoo is also wrong when it says it's $357 billion? Why should I believe that your figures are right and everyone source I've found is wrong? Because you say so?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Applelunatic
So everyone is wrong but you, right? So Yahoo is also wrong when it says it's $357 billion?
Yes, yahoo is wrong if it says Apple's EV is $357 billion. Do the damn math yourself, it is very easy calculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdnc123
Yes, yahoo is wrong if it says Apple's EV is $357 billion. Do the damn math yourself, it is very easy calculation.
Why should I believe you that Yahoo and the other site I found is wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater
1. Not everyone is out to short Apple stock, that comment has become nothing more than a cheap catch phrase on this forum when people don't like what they hear.
2. The fact that Apple created a bottleneck at the end of 2012 this isn't that hard to grasp. An iMac that took forever to come out.
3. rMBP that has seen several price drops because it was overpriced and underpowered. A price drop mid cycle by Apple and added drops by authorized dealers. When was the last time Apple had to drop the price of a product mid cycle? Issue like these are the reason for the drop in stock.
1. When Apple are still making so much profit, why else would it seemingly be knocked & held lower than it was before compared to other shares that flying at the moment, compared to how the other co's are doing?
2. New mass manufacturing processes can have teething problems & some be harder to get right than others, compared to building 1 or 2 prototypes in labs, but once the problems are sorted...
3. Current financial climates? Done to help boost sales of more expensive models during these trying times? Not to mention things get cheaper to make once they are produced more & more, partly as a result of point 2?
And no, I have no shares in AAPL, unfortunately. Just saying why things could be.
Another site that has the same figure as Yahoo: http://www.macroaxis.com/invest/ratio/AAPL--Current_Valuation
It's rather an amazing coincidence that all these sites are calculating "enterprise value" wrong, no?
And yet another website that shows EV being higher under Tim Cook than before him: http://www.quandl.com/OFDP-Open-Financial-Data-Project/DMDRN_AAPL_EV-Apple-Inc-AAPL-Enterprise-Value
And their source data: http://www.ofdp.org/damodarans/data?code=AAPL
I've still yet to see why this "EV" is the one and only definitive metric by which a company should be judged. Secondly, if it's "Finance 101" why are there so many varied calculations of it?
Originally Posted by jdnc123
Apple on the other hand has been delaying releases, releasing products than can't meet demand or releasing half-baked apps such as maps.
This sentence basically summarizes your lies. Why not just post it instead?
Three straight earnings misses…
lol.
Nobody believes in Tim…
lol.
It is baffling that the analysts appear to have potentially been more in touch with what sales were doing than the CEO.
It's baffling that you think this is in any way the case.
Originally Posted by jdnc123
Why doesn't the company want to give consumers what they want.
Maybe if you stopped pretending that people want a larger display, you'd know the answer to that.
Originally Posted by jdnc123
Company A has mkt cap of $100 and debt of $0; Company B has market cap of $50 and debt of $60. No cash at either. Which company is worth more? In the real world its B, in your fantasy land its A.
Could you maybe explain how this makes any sense whatsoever?
Well frak, I would have though debt to be bad thing. Looks like I can stop paying my bills.
But don't dare bring up the fact that all of these same issues (delays, supply constraints, poor product launches, etc.) happened numerous times under Steve Jobs because they get hand-waved away because "TEH EV IS LOWER NOW THAN BEFORE!! ZOMG!!!!".
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
Well frak, I would have though debt to be bad thing. Looks like I can stop paying my bills.
And it's even debatable that his statement about EV being lower is even correct. All sites I can find that give historical trends on EV show it higher today than before Tim Cook took over. He was probably furiously searching for some random metric he could use to try to win his debate about how Apple is worse off now than before. Because having revenues double under your watch and having the most profitable quarters in company history clearly show that Tim Cook is failing at his job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Ok they care about iPhones and iPads. I still think they could give a shit less about Macs.
You can give a shit about something.
You can care less about something.
You can be scared shitless by something.
But you can't give a shit less about anything.
Didn't your English teacher teach you the proper use of shit?