Never mind the fact that Cook "created" all that value before "destroying" it. It went way up before going down. You can't look at it one way and not the other. Or I guess you CAN, but you shouldn't lest you get called out for misrepresenting the facts.
Sleeping at the wheel doesn't really sound like Apple to me, and certainly not Cook who played a not so minor part in building Apple into the monster it is today. You realize he's been there a while, right? It's not like they tapped some guy on the shoulder and woke him from his nap to run the thing, and he promptly nodded back off. People saying he's not providing leadership are ... wait for it... not people who he is in charge of leading.
Facts are they're building out massive data centers, subsidizing manufacturing partners and suppliers, building a huge awesome HQ, and spending plenty on R&D, of which exactly we purposefully are not made aware of. For all we know, Apple has a thousand subterranean drones pulling optical cable networks across North America in order to jump up and declare victory over Google Fiber and the cable companies before they ever get the chance. In fact, I'm going to insist that's the case, and I'd be about as right as you are. They don't talk about what they're working on for good reason. Hell, look what happened when Schmidt was on the board and saw iOS. I want them to stay quiet, and reveal the next "thing" whenever it's 100% perfect, whiners be damned, and not a minute sooner.
Posters like jdnc123 don't deserve the rationality of such posts. There's no way in hell he will actually read it with any degree sincerity. He will respond with a sarcastic, mocking retort then go on to another spiel which is based on 100% ignorance.
Pretty much single person who has WORKED with Cook has said that he's the hardest working person they've ever met, the guy starts his day at 4am, and lives, breathes, and sleeps Apple. Everytime he speaks, it's clear he understands the sacredness of the company and his position. Jobs put his trust in him for a reason. When Cook states they have very exciting stuff in the pipeline, I believe him. But according to jdnc, Cook is "sleeping at the wheel" and "lazy", I guess because he hasn't laid out Apple's future product roadmap to investors and spilled the company's guts, or maybe to jdnc personally. He needs to turn the company into Google, and show the products in development for all to see so they can keep the "hype" going for people like jdnc. No, Apple's stock price tells us everything we need to know about Tim Cook, Apple's phenomenal performance be damned.
PS- I bought a shitload of stock @ $650, so obviously I'm not thrilled at how it's been going. But unlike people like jdnc, I actually have confidence in the company. I've also been following the causes of the stock dips, which have been based on negative stories and speculation which have very little to do with fact. Just today, investors decidd to shave $20B from the company because of some baseless assumptions about a fucking audio chip numbers that may or may not mean anything, and may not even involve Apple. I'm able to separate this hysteria and not instinctive blame Cook, as I understand he has little control over this kind bullshit. If Apple announces a shit product tomorrow, then yes, I can blame Cook. But not when the stock takes a beating over shitty, unsubstantiated rumors because investors/analysts are short-sighted and insane.
Posters like jdnc123 don't deserve the rationality of such posts. There's no way in hell he will actually read it with any degree sincerity. He will respond with a sarcastic, mocking retort then go on to another spiel which is based on 100% ignorance.
Pretty much single person who has WORKED with Cook has said that he's the hardest working person they've ever met, the guy starts his day at 4am, and lives, breathes, and sleeps Apple. Everytime he speaks, it's clear he understands the sacredness of the company and his position. Jobs put his trust in him for a reason. When Cook states they have very exciting stuff in the pipeline, I believe him. But according to jdnc, Cook is "sleeping at the wheel" and "lazy", I guess because he hasn't laid out Apple's future product roadmap to investors and spilled the company's guts, or maybe to jdnc personally. He needs to turn the company into Google, and show the products in development for all to see so they can keep the "hype" going for people like jdnc. No, Apple's stock price tells us everything we need to know about Tim Cook, Apple's phenomenal performance be damned.
PS- I bought a shitload of stock @ $650, so obviously I'm not thrilled at how it's been going. But unlike people like jdnc, I actually have confidence in the company. I've also been following the causes of the stock dips, which have been based on negative stories and speculation which have very little to do with fact. Just today, investors decidd to shave $20B from the company because of some baseless assumptions about a fucking audio chip numbers that may or may not mean anything, and may not even involve Apple. I'm able to separate this hysteria and not instinctive blame Cook, as I understand he has little control over this kind bullshit. If Apple announces a shit product tomorrow, then yes, I can blame Cook. But not when the stock takes a beating over shitty, unsubstantiated rumors because investors/analysts are short-sighted and insane.
While all written above might be true and I could agree with most of it, there is also a fact that Tim Cook is no Steve Jobs and he should communicate to public in a different way. SJ ignoring WS was another story. He was expected to do so. TC is not. He should understand he needs his own, different approach. Silence is wrong.
However, if he and the board are doing that on purpose, then they are manipulating stocks more than WS to grab on most of them for themselves. In this case we would talk criminal case. But in either way, attitude of TC and the board hurts mostly small investors, not hedge funds. And small investors are usually Apple loyal customers and TC knows that, which makes at least some of his deeds intentional.
While @jdnc123 is obviously living on a strange planet, where he sees no invention at Apple and seeing Samsomething actually inventing I have also read here some myths about how Apple doesn't case about stock. THis is really the biggest myth of them all here!
Of course they do. They are payed with it. Top brass is always selling at period top values, especially when they leave the company. SJ did do exactly the same. So, let's not lie to each other about some stupid ideals connected to the Apple's management . They have most info about what is going on in the company so they can manipulate with it as well. Personally, I couldn't care less if they squeeze out some more cash out of hedge funds, but they are doing it with the small investors. That's simply bad.
Those mother fuxker is like the blind people touch an elephant below , each one of them says differently , but all of them are just blindly wrong and insist elephant is like what they think.
Read my post on volatility trading around earnings on this thread. You won't understand it, but if you think a non-sophisticated investor could even remotely offer up a trade like that you are kidding yourself. Yep, I got my MBA and CFA (many yrs ago) just to post on Internet forums. Go ahead, explain what I'm talking about as a gave out a free market neutral idea to express a view on whether market was right or wrong about Apple in the near-term. You wont be able to google it to find an answer. Honestly, just block me if you don't want to read my posts.
Tell you who else has got an MBA: John Browett.
It doesn't actually prove your opinion is worth anything.
it is my greatest investment dream that Apple buys Tesla. This gives them almost unlimited growth potential for the next 20 years and the ability to own a completely new market....
I'd like to see them do something in this area. It's a risky business to be in but It only took Musk <$200m to setup.
The question is though, what value would Apple bring to Tesla besides cash? If Tesla can turn a profit by itself, it doesn't need it. If it can't, it could end up being a black hole for Apple like it almost did for Musk.
I think the engineering and battery R&D could be very beneficial to them but I don't think Musk needs a tech company to take it over. If you owned a company and Apple offered to buy it from you when you wanted to retain control, you wouldn't necessarily agree to it, like what happened with DropBox.
I would like to see Apple bring to market the next revolution in battery technology, like this:
That sort of thing would revolutionise everything in transport and electronics. That would make recharging an electric car go from 8 hours or so to seconds, similarly with laptops and mobile devices. I'd rather see batteries that have enough capacity that they don't ever need to be charged within a timeframe of 2 years+ but whatever is practical.
I recall that people were giving him a lot credit for managing a tough transition superbly, and sent the stock up with high hopes for the future.
As he took credit on the upside, it is perfectly logical for investors to expect him to take the blame.
I don't recall the praise for the increase being nearly as much as the criticism for the decrease and it certainly wasn't anything to do with new products given how quickly it happened. The main thing I would point to is that people now make suggestions that Tim should be fired because he's not as good as Steve and yet the stock rose by the same amount it fell while Tim was CEO. The classic one is the following:
The high stock increase happened not that long after Jobs death so I think it is fair to assume he was just following a plan that Jobs had laid out.
In other words, Tim was riding off the disappointment of the iPhone 4S, when people expected a new model and Steve Jobs' passing. So any success is not his, that's because of Steve but all the problems are his fault. Tough job.
As to your question about what products could reinvigorate sales I think a larger screen iPhone along with a more affordable version would go a long way to calm the markets.
You mixed the two things together again: market success and sales success. The sales aren't down and don't need to be reinvigorated. Apple just had a record sales quarter. A more affordable iPhone will increase volume at the expense of profits (like what happened in Q1, which was apparently disappointing), a bigger screen will do nothing as it won't be an affordable model.
My point is that a very minor update to iOS along with a largely unchanged 4 inch 5S will not turn things around. They will have to either introduce a brand new product that proves hugely popular like the iPad or figure out a way to take their existing lines and sell a lot more of them than they have been doing.
What new product do you specifically want to see them make?
the money is better spent being paid out to shareholders
So rather than put the money out on headquarters that allows Apple to expand their talent and grow, you'd rather they issued a handout, which creates zero growth?
Why wouldn't people in AppleInsider - set up to be a forum for stockholders, as well as fans, not care on these kind of arguments. Correctly, or incorrectly, his argument is made cogently. I am not stock holder, so I don't really care, the financial jargon is noise to me. However he seems to know his stuff.
And really, moderators shouldn't be posting this kind of trite dismissal.
So DigiTimes is out with another rumor that Apple has halted all component orders for Macs speculating that the ramp up last year was overly aggressive. I'm sorry but these bad news rumors coming out right before earnings release (when Apple can't comment on them) doesn't pass the smell test. Especially with Verizon saying they sold 4M iPhones this quarter in line with expectations (and up from the 3.2M they sold this quarter last year).
So DigiTimes is out with another rumor that Apple has halted all component orders for Macs speculating that the ramp up last year was overly aggressive. I'm sorry but these bad news rumors coming out right before earnings release (when Apple can't comment on them) doesn't pass the smell test. Especially with Verizon saying they sold 4M iPhones this quarter in line with expectations (and up from the 3.2M they sold this quarter last year).
It depends what models sell.
However, as Tim Cook says, they may as well cannibalise themselves.
Why wouldn't people in AppleInsider - set up to be a forum for stockholders, as well as fans, not care on these kind of arguments. Correctly, or incorrectly, his argument is made cogently. I am not stock holder, so I don't really care, the financial jargon is noise to me. However he seems to know his stuff.
And really, moderators shouldn't be posting this kind of trite dismissal.
You haven't yet noticed that on AI "moderator" means "inflamer"?
So DigiTimes is out with another rumor that Apple has halted all component orders for Macs speculating that the ramp up last year was overly aggressive. I'm sorry but these bad news rumors coming out right before earnings release (when Apple can't comment on them) doesn't pass the smell test. Especially with Verizon saying they sold 4M iPhones this quarter in line with expectations (and up from the 3.2M they sold this quarter last year).
Haven't you noticed the very considerable price drops in the MacBook Pro line? This is a sign that there is too much supply.
His point is....money is neither lost or gained unless the equity is sold. A loss/gain on paper is just that; an unrealized loss/gain---and means nothing until the stock is sold.
I bought AAPL @ (a split adjusted) $4.60/share and have held it for almost 15 years. This is just another blip in the chart on the way to $800, big deal.
Exactly, Dickprinter. And congrats on the long hold. I'm in since $12.33 (split-adjusted) and concur with your blip comment.
Why wouldn't people in AppleInsider - set up to be a forum for stockholders, as well as fans, not care on these kind of arguments. Correctly, or incorrectly, his argument is made cogently. I am not stock holder, so I don't really care, the financial jargon is noise to me. However he seems to know his stuff.
And really, moderators shouldn't be posting this kind of trite dismissal.
Trite? He has to read every one of jdnc123's slobbering posts, and he can see through a phoney like this maybe a little bit better than you can. Here's an example of jndc's "cogent" prose for you to chew on, a reply to me just above on page 8 of this thread:
Read my post on volatility trading around earnings on this thread. You won't understand it, but if you think a non-sophisticated investor could even remotely offer up a trade like that you are kidding yourself. Yep, I got my MBA and CFA (many yrs ago) just to post on Internet forums. Go ahead, explain what I'm talking about as a gave out a free market neutral idea to express a view on whether market was right or wrong about Apple in the near-term. You wont be able to google it to find an answer. Honestly, just block me if you don't want to read my posts
.
The guy is raving, manic. If you can't see that, you're not reading his English closely enough to see through the fakery. The jargon seems like it's being fed to him by someone who speaks finance natively, and he's just one of our old trolls retreaded as a market expert so he can zero in on Apple's perceived new vulnerability. I have an idea of who he is, or was . . .
Said it before and will say it again, no CEO has ever destroyed this much value in a bull market. Has never happened before. Not once. He will go down in infamy.
Between Dec 28, 2007 and Feb 25, 2008 (less than two months) I watched (and held my stock) as Steve Jobs "destroyed" an equivalent amount of AAPL value on a percentage basis as Tim has done over a longer period of time. From 200 down to 120 in two months. Ouch. Ultimately, AAPL made its way down to 78, meaning that Steve "destroyed" over 50% of AAPL's value. On a percentage basis, that's MUCH greater than AAPL's current drop from its current all-time-high. Leaving the absolute market cap out of it for the moment (I'll get back to that) that means that individual investors that bought in at or near 200 were much more burned by Steve than current investors have been by Tim. In your own portfolio, percentage is what matters. You decide how much you can risk based on potential reward, as a fraction of your net value, and you get enough shares to reach that amount, individual share price be damned. Steve's decline burned more than Tim's. But I held, as did others, and AAPL came back. It can happen again. ( I think it will.)
Now, with regard to the absolute market cap, the only reason that Tim's absolute destruction of market value is greater than any previous CEO is that his current decline (lower percentage than Steve's) came off of an incredibly high peak that he was partially responsible for getting to in the first place. Days after Steve Jobs died, AAPL was sitting at $370. As of today, Tim has AAPL up a little less than 10% from that level, and I agree that that is not great, especially in the current investment climate. But it is not as hideous as you make it. The "destruction" you tout came from a peak that Tim produced in one year after Steve passed. I'm sure that you want to totally credit Steve for the initial climb from $370 to $700, post-mortem based on his influence in the products that came out then, but also lay all of the the blame for the subsequent decline at the feet of Tim. This interpretation is nothing but confirmation bias. YOU believe that Tim has destroyed things, so YOU adopt an interpretation that would support it.
Here's the funny thing. When (not if) Apple finally releases whatever they have been cooking for so long, and IF it is the hit I think it will be, then the stock will come roaring back and eclipse the $700 figure and beyond. If that happens, then I predict this: every Tim Cook hater out there (e.g. Rocco Pendola, you, etc, etc) will claim that Steve deserves the credit for that product because he laid out an idiot-proof roadmap before he passed. Steve will get all of your credit once again. See what I mean? Confirmation bias. That's my prediction for what will occur in a few more years.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastasleep
Never mind the fact that Cook "created" all that value before "destroying" it. It went way up before going down. You can't look at it one way and not the other. Or I guess you CAN, but you shouldn't lest you get called out for misrepresenting the facts.
Sleeping at the wheel doesn't really sound like Apple to me, and certainly not Cook who played a not so minor part in building Apple into the monster it is today. You realize he's been there a while, right? It's not like they tapped some guy on the shoulder and woke him from his nap to run the thing, and he promptly nodded back off. People saying he's not providing leadership are ... wait for it... not people who he is in charge of leading.
Facts are they're building out massive data centers, subsidizing manufacturing partners and suppliers, building a huge awesome HQ, and spending plenty on R&D, of which exactly we purposefully are not made aware of. For all we know, Apple has a thousand subterranean drones pulling optical cable networks across North America in order to jump up and declare victory over Google Fiber and the cable companies before they ever get the chance. In fact, I'm going to insist that's the case, and I'd be about as right as you are. They don't talk about what they're working on for good reason. Hell, look what happened when Schmidt was on the board and saw iOS. I want them to stay quiet, and reveal the next "thing" whenever it's 100% perfect, whiners be damned, and not a minute sooner.
Posters like jdnc123 don't deserve the rationality of such posts. There's no way in hell he will actually read it with any degree sincerity. He will respond with a sarcastic, mocking retort then go on to another spiel which is based on 100% ignorance.
Pretty much single person who has WORKED with Cook has said that he's the hardest working person they've ever met, the guy starts his day at 4am, and lives, breathes, and sleeps Apple. Everytime he speaks, it's clear he understands the sacredness of the company and his position. Jobs put his trust in him for a reason. When Cook states they have very exciting stuff in the pipeline, I believe him. But according to jdnc, Cook is "sleeping at the wheel" and "lazy", I guess because he hasn't laid out Apple's future product roadmap to investors and spilled the company's guts, or maybe to jdnc personally. He needs to turn the company into Google, and show the products in development for all to see so they can keep the "hype" going for people like jdnc. No, Apple's stock price tells us everything we need to know about Tim Cook, Apple's phenomenal performance be damned.
PS- I bought a shitload of stock @ $650, so obviously I'm not thrilled at how it's been going. But unlike people like jdnc, I actually have confidence in the company. I've also been following the causes of the stock dips, which have been based on negative stories and speculation which have very little to do with fact. Just today, investors decidd to shave $20B from the company because of some baseless assumptions about a fucking audio chip numbers that may or may not mean anything, and may not even involve Apple. I'm able to separate this hysteria and not instinctive blame Cook, as I understand he has little control over this kind bullshit. If Apple announces a shit product tomorrow, then yes, I can blame Cook. But not when the stock takes a beating over shitty, unsubstantiated rumors because investors/analysts are short-sighted and insane.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
Posters like jdnc123 don't deserve the rationality of such posts. There's no way in hell he will actually read it with any degree sincerity. He will respond with a sarcastic, mocking retort then go on to another spiel which is based on 100% ignorance.
Pretty much single person who has WORKED with Cook has said that he's the hardest working person they've ever met, the guy starts his day at 4am, and lives, breathes, and sleeps Apple. Everytime he speaks, it's clear he understands the sacredness of the company and his position. Jobs put his trust in him for a reason. When Cook states they have very exciting stuff in the pipeline, I believe him. But according to jdnc, Cook is "sleeping at the wheel" and "lazy", I guess because he hasn't laid out Apple's future product roadmap to investors and spilled the company's guts, or maybe to jdnc personally. He needs to turn the company into Google, and show the products in development for all to see so they can keep the "hype" going for people like jdnc. No, Apple's stock price tells us everything we need to know about Tim Cook, Apple's phenomenal performance be damned.
PS- I bought a shitload of stock @ $650, so obviously I'm not thrilled at how it's been going. But unlike people like jdnc, I actually have confidence in the company. I've also been following the causes of the stock dips, which have been based on negative stories and speculation which have very little to do with fact. Just today, investors decidd to shave $20B from the company because of some baseless assumptions about a fucking audio chip numbers that may or may not mean anything, and may not even involve Apple. I'm able to separate this hysteria and not instinctive blame Cook, as I understand he has little control over this kind bullshit. If Apple announces a shit product tomorrow, then yes, I can blame Cook. But not when the stock takes a beating over shitty, unsubstantiated rumors because investors/analysts are short-sighted and insane.
While all written above might be true and I could agree with most of it, there is also a fact that Tim Cook is no Steve Jobs and he should communicate to public in a different way. SJ ignoring WS was another story. He was expected to do so. TC is not. He should understand he needs his own, different approach. Silence is wrong.
However, if he and the board are doing that on purpose, then they are manipulating stocks more than WS to grab on most of them for themselves. In this case we would talk criminal case. But in either way, attitude of TC and the board hurts mostly small investors, not hedge funds. And small investors are usually Apple loyal customers and TC knows that, which makes at least some of his deeds intentional.
While @jdnc123 is obviously living on a strange planet, where he sees no invention at Apple and seeing Samsomething actually inventing I have also read here some myths about how Apple doesn't case about stock. THis is really the biggest myth of them all here!
Of course they do. They are payed with it. Top brass is always selling at period top values, especially when they leave the company. SJ did do exactly the same. So, let's not lie to each other about some stupid ideals connected to the Apple's management . They have most info about what is going on in the company so they can manipulate with it as well. Personally, I couldn't care less if they squeeze out some more cash out of hedge funds, but they are doing it with the small investors. That's simply bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazy_mac_lover
Those mother fuxker is like the blind people touch an elephant below , each one of them says differently , but all of them are just blindly wrong and insist elephant is like what they think.
Like it!
… or maybe they find you a tiny bit dull?
Tell you who else has got an MBA: John Browett.
It doesn't actually prove your opinion is worth anything.
And that is assuming you really have an MBA.
I'd like to see them do something in this area. It's a risky business to be in but It only took Musk <$200m to setup.
The question is though, what value would Apple bring to Tesla besides cash? If Tesla can turn a profit by itself, it doesn't need it. If it can't, it could end up being a black hole for Apple like it almost did for Musk.
I think the engineering and battery R&D could be very beneficial to them but I don't think Musk needs a tech company to take it over. If you owned a company and Apple offered to buy it from you when you wanted to retain control, you wouldn't necessarily agree to it, like what happened with DropBox.
I would like to see Apple bring to market the next revolution in battery technology, like this:
http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/17/researchers-devise-fast-and-powerful-microbattery/
That sort of thing would revolutionise everything in transport and electronics. That would make recharging an electric car go from 8 hours or so to seconds, similarly with laptops and mobile devices. I'd rather see batteries that have enough capacity that they don't ever need to be charged within a timeframe of 2 years+ but whatever is practical.
I don't recall the praise for the increase being nearly as much as the criticism for the decrease and it certainly wasn't anything to do with new products given how quickly it happened. The main thing I would point to is that people now make suggestions that Tim should be fired because he's not as good as Steve and yet the stock rose by the same amount it fell while Tim was CEO. The classic one is the following:
In other words, Tim was riding off the disappointment of the iPhone 4S, when people expected a new model and Steve Jobs' passing. So any success is not his, that's because of Steve but all the problems are his fault. Tough job.
You mixed the two things together again: market success and sales success. The sales aren't down and don't need to be reinvigorated. Apple just had a record sales quarter. A more affordable iPhone will increase volume at the expense of profits (like what happened in Q1, which was apparently disappointing), a bigger screen will do nothing as it won't be an affordable model.
What new product do you specifically want to see them make?
So rather than put the money out on headquarters that allows Apple to expand their talent and grow, you'd rather they issued a handout, which creates zero growth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Could you maybe say it somewhere the people care?
Why wouldn't people in AppleInsider - set up to be a forum for stockholders, as well as fans, not care on these kind of arguments. Correctly, or incorrectly, his argument is made cogently. I am not stock holder, so I don't really care, the financial jargon is noise to me. However he seems to know his stuff.
And really, moderators shouldn't be posting this kind of trite dismissal.
I'd like to see Apple buy Visa.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
So DigiTimes is out with another rumor that Apple has halted all component orders for Macs speculating that the ramp up last year was overly aggressive. I'm sorry but these bad news rumors coming out right before earnings release (when Apple can't comment on them) doesn't pass the smell test. Especially with Verizon saying they sold 4M iPhones this quarter in line with expectations (and up from the 3.2M they sold this quarter last year).
It depends what models sell.
However, as Tim Cook says, they may as well cannibalise themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
Why wouldn't people in AppleInsider - set up to be a forum for stockholders, as well as fans, not care on these kind of arguments. Correctly, or incorrectly, his argument is made cogently. I am not stock holder, so I don't really care, the financial jargon is noise to me. However he seems to know his stuff.
And really, moderators shouldn't be posting this kind of trite dismissal.
You haven't yet noticed that on AI "moderator" means "inflamer"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
So DigiTimes is out with another rumor that Apple has halted all component orders for Macs speculating that the ramp up last year was overly aggressive. I'm sorry but these bad news rumors coming out right before earnings release (when Apple can't comment on them) doesn't pass the smell test. Especially with Verizon saying they sold 4M iPhones this quarter in line with expectations (and up from the 3.2M they sold this quarter last year).
Haven't you noticed the very considerable price drops in the MacBook Pro line? This is a sign that there is too much supply.
Originally Posted by asdasd
Why wouldn't people in AppleInsider - set up to be a forum for stockholders, as well as fans, not care on these kind of arguments. …incorrectly…
Gee, I wonder why we wouldn't care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter
His point is....money is neither lost or gained unless the equity is sold. A loss/gain on paper is just that; an unrealized loss/gain---and means nothing until the stock is sold.
I bought AAPL @ (a split adjusted) $4.60/share and have held it for almost 15 years. This is just another blip in the chart on the way to $800, big deal.
Exactly, Dickprinter. And congrats on the long hold. I'm in since $12.33 (split-adjusted) and concur with your blip comment.
Thompson
Trite? He has to read every one of jdnc123's slobbering posts, and he can see through a phoney like this maybe a little bit better than you can. Here's an example of jndc's "cogent" prose for you to chew on, a reply to me just above on page 8 of this thread:
.
The guy is raving, manic. If you can't see that, you're not reading his English closely enough to see through the fakery. The jargon seems like it's being fed to him by someone who speaks finance natively, and he's just one of our old trolls retreaded as a market expert so he can zero in on Apple's perceived new vulnerability. I have an idea of who he is, or was . . .
Back at work, é ése?
Could be a sign that their production has improved and costs have come down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdnc123
Said it before and will say it again, no CEO has ever destroyed this much value in a bull market. Has never happened before. Not once. He will go down in infamy.
Between Dec 28, 2007 and Feb 25, 2008 (less than two months) I watched (and held my stock) as Steve Jobs "destroyed" an equivalent amount of AAPL value on a percentage basis as Tim has done over a longer period of time. From 200 down to 120 in two months. Ouch. Ultimately, AAPL made its way down to 78, meaning that Steve "destroyed" over 50% of AAPL's value. On a percentage basis, that's MUCH greater than AAPL's current drop from its current all-time-high. Leaving the absolute market cap out of it for the moment (I'll get back to that) that means that individual investors that bought in at or near 200 were much more burned by Steve than current investors have been by Tim. In your own portfolio, percentage is what matters. You decide how much you can risk based on potential reward, as a fraction of your net value, and you get enough shares to reach that amount, individual share price be damned. Steve's decline burned more than Tim's. But I held, as did others, and AAPL came back. It can happen again. ( I think it will.)
Now, with regard to the absolute market cap, the only reason that Tim's absolute destruction of market value is greater than any previous CEO is that his current decline (lower percentage than Steve's) came off of an incredibly high peak that he was partially responsible for getting to in the first place. Days after Steve Jobs died, AAPL was sitting at $370. As of today, Tim has AAPL up a little less than 10% from that level, and I agree that that is not great, especially in the current investment climate. But it is not as hideous as you make it. The "destruction" you tout came from a peak that Tim produced in one year after Steve passed. I'm sure that you want to totally credit Steve for the initial climb from $370 to $700, post-mortem based on his influence in the products that came out then, but also lay all of the the blame for the subsequent decline at the feet of Tim. This interpretation is nothing but confirmation bias. YOU believe that Tim has destroyed things, so YOU adopt an interpretation that would support it.
Here's the funny thing. When (not if) Apple finally releases whatever they have been cooking for so long, and IF it is the hit I think it will be, then the stock will come roaring back and eclipse the $700 figure and beyond. If that happens, then I predict this: every Tim Cook hater out there (e.g. Rocco Pendola, you, etc, etc) will claim that Steve deserves the credit for that product because he laid out an idiot-proof roadmap before he passed. Steve will get all of your credit once again. See what I mean? Confirmation bias. That's my prediction for what will occur in a few more years.
Thompson
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Gee, I wonder why we wouldn't care.
It's not like the pro-all-the-time-anytime-anything Apple people on this forum haven't made really lame ass statements. Why should we care about them?