As cool as they are, iPhones and iPads are in their 6th generation -- they're old! How about a killer app, something that rivals PayPal or Pandora (in earnings and disruption)? Whatever happened to Apple TV or wearables? Where's the beef?
Personally I "believe" there's magic in Apple's pipeline. But Cook's management and the company's underperformance has put Apple in a position of having to re-prove itself to Wall Street and in the marketplace.
Who says Apple has to re-prove anything? Any investors who don't like what they see can sell. Consumers all over the world are voting with their wallets. Apple gets to continue to be Apple and the commentariat's going to continue to be emotional about it. The world is as it should be and it's a great time to hold AAPL.
Impatience? Yeah, it's all over the place. My opinion is that if you buy AAPL and you're impatient, that makes you a trader as opposed to an investor. Traders live and die by the market's emotional volatility, and then they sometimes complain when the volatility doesn't go in the direction they like. I think it's better to be an investor.
As cool as they are, iPhones and iPads are in their 6th generation -- they're old! How about a killer app, something that rivals PayPal or Pandora (in earnings and disruption)? Whatever happened to Apple TV or wearables? Where's the beef?
Personally I "believe" there's magic in Apple's pipeline. But Cook's management and the company's underperformance has put Apple in a position of having to re-prove itself to Wall Street and in the marketplace.
Underperformance compared to what? One quarter that was the exception not the norm? Peers that are clearly over valued? A stock market in general that is most likely in a bubble because of Fed policy?
TC has made it clear that he isn't focused on daily stock price, it seems a little out of touch when stock price is same as it was 2 years ago. Honestly what does it take to get this stock moving? A simple tweet from TC saying new product coming in June 2014 verses an interview stating we just spent 14B buy back. At this point they should know what words, actions, rumors will tank the stock. Investors are wanting to know is this just an iphone story.
I can understand anyone buying in to AAPL mid way though Tim's reign feeling that way, but to be fair check out AAPL since Tim became CFO, he has been been pretty involved in Apple's success. I certainly would like to see APPL back where it belongs on merit but I doubt there is anyone that could do a better job just now. I often wonder of a guy like Elon Musk might do the trick and Tim go back to being CFO but who could do it?
People will always remember things more fondly than they actually were. They rarely questioned Apple as long as SJ was at the helm, there was a confidence there that no other CEO will ever be able to attain. I personally think Tim Cook has done a splendid job and it's probably no different than SJ would've done.
Apple has experienced exponential growth, and has become one of the biggest companies ever. At a point it becomes almost impossible to sustain that growth, a company then has to switch gears and maintain the size they've grown into.
Apple has spent over $40 Billion of it's own cash rebuying the stock. The first place they purchased from was the stock held by Institutional ownership. That is the reason of the decline.
It's amazing how some people try to make a storm in a glass of water.
I'm not really that surprised by this, it would explain why the stock has been drifting sideways for so long while GOOG and AMZN continue to be bid up almost on a a daily basis. Doesn't mean that this can't change though -- and if it does, its that institutional $$ that can really move AAPL up in a big way.
It's going to take a new product category to make this happen though, IMO. The reason I say that is because it doesn't seem to matter to Wall St. how many iPhones or iPads are sold in a quarter anymore (just look at the last one). The general belief seems to be that the smartphone and tablet markets are fairly mature and with AAPL's exposure to the premium segment of those markets, there just isn't enough potential growth to move the needle of growth for a big company like AAPL. Add to this the "AAPL is doomed" narrative, which states that one day soon AAPL will pull a Blackberry and nobody will want AAPL products because something else will come along to make that scenario occur. Or that AAPL's margins will fall because of $25 smartphones in India or something like that. I don't agree with either of these.
To my point about it taking a new product category to move the stock:
I continue to read articles telling me that Steve Jobs has died, and therefore AAPL can't innovate because they haven't released an iPod/iPhone/iPad-type product under Tim Cook yet. Once they do, however, (assuming it is successful) it will prove that AAPL can create entirely new product categories and this will likely prove that there is growth potential beyond iPhones and iPads at AAPL.
Bottom line, institutional investors need to see new growth drivers for the company -- ones that can move the needle. This is why AAPL stock is trading at such a low P/E relative to GOOG & AMZN. Wall St. thinks that those companies completely dominate their respective markets (which are growing) and are insulated from competition. They don't think that for AAPL. Instead they generally believe AAPL is perpetually at risk to fickle consumers and low-priced mobile devices. AAPL needs other major lines of business to offset this doom and gloom perception. Eventually, after this happens, the institutional money flows back into AAPL and the stock moves higher. Until then, the stock will probably stay in the $500-600 range.
Apple has spent over $40 Billion of it's own cash rebuying the stock. The first place they purchased from was the stock held by Institutional ownership. That is the reason of the decline.
It's amazing how some people try to make a storm in a glass of water.
If that's the case, Apple didn't force those institutional investors to sell, and didn't bar them from buying back in. Whatever the reason, the proportion of instructional investors has fallen, they've sold more than they've bought, and given that total shares outstanding have fallen that indicates that they've sold even more than the proportions on their own indicate.
I still think that when the story of this era of Apple finally comes out, the dirty little truth will be that Steve Jobs' health went seriously south earlier than anyone even hinted at, and from about early 2009 on, the principal dynamic at the top was drama among the senior VPs, not leadership from Jobs -- and the result of that was stalemate, and the company coping by opting for no decisions at all instead of bad or split decisions. Jobs had such a long lead time on consumer- and prosumer-grade products that the company could pretty much finesse it on hardware by simply continuing to roll the multi-year supply of planned products that Jobs and the hardware guys had mapped out, oh, through to about 2030, but the applications, OS quality control and the Mac Pro clearly suffered. And now that the boardroom drama is gone and people can get on with things, we're seeing some catch up -- we're seeing it with the Mac Pro, we're seeing it with iWork, with belatedly porting iOS iWork with its huge energy efficiency advantage over to Mac OS, and then very rapidly adding in all the missing iWork 09 features; and hopefully we'll soon see it with the pro apps and the iTunes/TV/entertainment world as well.
I'm not really that surprised by this, it would explain why the stock has been drifting sideways for so long while GOOG and AMZN continue to be bid up almost on a a daily basis. Doesn't mean that this can't change though -- and if it does, its that institutional $$ that can really move AAPL up in a big way.
It's going to take a new product category to make this happen though, IMO. The reason I say that is because it doesn't seem to matter to Wall St. how many iPhones or iPads are sold in a quarter anymore (just look at the last one). The general belief seems to be that the smartphone and tablet markets are fairly mature and with AAPL's exposure to the premium segment of those markets, there just isn't enough potential growth to move the needle of growth for a big company like AAPL. Add to this the "AAPL is doomed" narrative, which states that one day soon AAPL will pull a Blackberry and nobody will want AAPL products because something else will come along to make that scenario occur. Or that AAPL's margins will fall because of $25 smartphones in India or something like that. I don't agree with either of these.
To my point about it taking a new product category to move the stock:
I continue to read articles telling me that Steve Jobs has died, and therefore AAPL can't innovate because they haven't released an iPod/iPhone/iPad-type product under Tim Cook yet. Once they do, however, (assuming it is successful) it will prove that AAPL can create entirely new product categories and this will likely prove that there is growth potential beyond iPhones and iPads at AAPL.
Bottom line, institutional investors need to see new growth drivers for the company -- ones that can move the needle. This is why AAPL stock is trading at such a low P/E relative to GOOG & AMZN. Wall St. thinks that those companies completely dominate their respective markets (which are growing) and are insulated from competition. They don't think that for AAPL. Instead they generally believe AAPL is perpetually at risk to fickle consumers and low-priced mobile devices. AAPL needs other major lines of business to offset this doom and gloom perception. Eventually, after this happens, the institutional money flows back into AAPL and the stock moves higher. Until then, the stock will probably stay in the $500-600 range.
Exactly! I agree with you. It is now incumbent on Apple to re-prove it's capable of producing magic products or a killer app. The overwhelming denial of the partisans on this site continues to confound me. You are not the arbiters, Wall Street is! The title of this article suggest Institutional ownership of Apple has sunk to a 5 year low. That is undeniable and the reason is these investors no longer believe Apple is capable of producing magic anything. That's why I'm correct in saying Apple must RE-PROVE itself to Wall Street and in the marketplace. This is undeniable.
I said this a while back when you are at the top there isn only one place to go, down. It's going to be hard for Apple to meet expectations even with record sales. If they miss even by a little the stock is going to take a hit like it did last time. In the US we love to do two things build up the underdog and then tear them down.
Apple also still battle a hatred by many of the old diehard PC v Apple types who hate the fact Apple has clearly trounced Microsoft and they transfer this hate now to wanting to see Scamsung and Google get their revenge.
If that's the case, Apple didn't force those institutional investors to sell, and didn't bar them from buying back in. Whatever the reason, the proportion of instructional investors has fallen, they've sold more than they've bought, and given that total shares outstanding have fallen that indicates that they've sold even more than the proportions on their own indicate.
This is significant news to investors.
And there I was thinking Apple had become a boring old stolid blue chip! Maybe this is good news after all ...
I can understand anyone buying in to AAPL mid way though Tim's reign feeling that way, but to be fair check out AAPL since Tim became CFO, he has been been pretty involved in Apple's success. I certainly would like to see APPL back where it belongs on merit but I doubt there is anyone that could do a better job just now. I often wonder of a guy like Elon Musk might do the trick and Tim go back to being CFO but who could do it?
Musk is an entrepreneur, a person who is driven to start companies and grow them as if they were his kids. Tim Cook is comfortable growing and managing an already established very large company. There are differences and Musk is not someone who would feel at home managing Apple.
It's never too late to call out a troll. Even after you are five or more responses into the thread when you finally realized that you’ve been suckered…
Sometimes it takes that long to see it. That’s a sign of near-human intelligence on their part. Rare thing.
Originally Posted by photoeditor
…the dirty little truth will be that Steve Jobs’ health went seriously south earlier than anyone even hinted at… …Jobs and the hardware guys had mapped out, oh, through to about 2030…
Comments
As cool as they are, iPhones and iPads are in their 6th generation -- they're old! How about a killer app, something that rivals PayPal or Pandora (in earnings and disruption)? Whatever happened to Apple TV or wearables? Where's the beef?
Personally I "believe" there's magic in Apple's pipeline. But Cook's management and the company's underperformance has put Apple in a position of having to re-prove itself to Wall Street and in the marketplace.
Who says Apple has to re-prove anything? Any investors who don't like what they see can sell. Consumers all over the world are voting with their wallets. Apple gets to continue to be Apple and the commentariat's going to continue to be emotional about it. The world is as it should be and it's a great time to hold AAPL.
Impatience? Yeah, it's all over the place. My opinion is that if you buy AAPL and you're impatient, that makes you a trader as opposed to an investor. Traders live and die by the market's emotional volatility, and then they sometimes complain when the volatility doesn't go in the direction they like. I think it's better to be an investor.
People will always remember things more fondly than they actually were. They rarely questioned Apple as long as SJ was at the helm, there was a confidence there that no other CEO will ever be able to attain. I personally think Tim Cook has done a splendid job and it's probably no different than SJ would've done.
Apple has experienced exponential growth, and has become one of the biggest companies ever. At a point it becomes almost impossible to sustain that growth, a company then has to switch gears and maintain the size they've grown into.
It's amazing how some people try to make a storm in a glass of water.
I'm not really that surprised by this, it would explain why the stock has been drifting sideways for so long while GOOG and AMZN continue to be bid up almost on a a daily basis. Doesn't mean that this can't change though -- and if it does, its that institutional $$ that can really move AAPL up in a big way.
It's going to take a new product category to make this happen though, IMO. The reason I say that is because it doesn't seem to matter to Wall St. how many iPhones or iPads are sold in a quarter anymore (just look at the last one). The general belief seems to be that the smartphone and tablet markets are fairly mature and with AAPL's exposure to the premium segment of those markets, there just isn't enough potential growth to move the needle of growth for a big company like AAPL. Add to this the "AAPL is doomed" narrative, which states that one day soon AAPL will pull a Blackberry and nobody will want AAPL products because something else will come along to make that scenario occur. Or that AAPL's margins will fall because of $25 smartphones in India or something like that. I don't agree with either of these.
To my point about it taking a new product category to move the stock:
I continue to read articles telling me that Steve Jobs has died, and therefore AAPL can't innovate because they haven't released an iPod/iPhone/iPad-type product under Tim Cook yet. Once they do, however, (assuming it is successful) it will prove that AAPL can create entirely new product categories and this will likely prove that there is growth potential beyond iPhones and iPads at AAPL.
Bottom line, institutional investors need to see new growth drivers for the company -- ones that can move the needle. This is why AAPL stock is trading at such a low P/E relative to GOOG & AMZN. Wall St. thinks that those companies completely dominate their respective markets (which are growing) and are insulated from competition. They don't think that for AAPL. Instead they generally believe AAPL is perpetually at risk to fickle consumers and low-priced mobile devices. AAPL needs other major lines of business to offset this doom and gloom perception. Eventually, after this happens, the institutional money flows back into AAPL and the stock moves higher. Until then, the stock will probably stay in the $500-600 range.
This is significant news to investors.
I'm not really that surprised by this, it would explain why the stock has been drifting sideways for so long while GOOG and AMZN continue to be bid up almost on a a daily basis. Doesn't mean that this can't change though -- and if it does, its that institutional $$ that can really move AAPL up in a big way.
It's going to take a new product category to make this happen though, IMO. The reason I say that is because it doesn't seem to matter to Wall St. how many iPhones or iPads are sold in a quarter anymore (just look at the last one). The general belief seems to be that the smartphone and tablet markets are fairly mature and with AAPL's exposure to the premium segment of those markets, there just isn't enough potential growth to move the needle of growth for a big company like AAPL. Add to this the "AAPL is doomed" narrative, which states that one day soon AAPL will pull a Blackberry and nobody will want AAPL products because something else will come along to make that scenario occur. Or that AAPL's margins will fall because of $25 smartphones in India or something like that. I don't agree with either of these.
To my point about it taking a new product category to move the stock:
I continue to read articles telling me that Steve Jobs has died, and therefore AAPL can't innovate because they haven't released an iPod/iPhone/iPad-type product under Tim Cook yet. Once they do, however, (assuming it is successful) it will prove that AAPL can create entirely new product categories and this will likely prove that there is growth potential beyond iPhones and iPads at AAPL.
Bottom line, institutional investors need to see new growth drivers for the company -- ones that can move the needle. This is why AAPL stock is trading at such a low P/E relative to GOOG & AMZN. Wall St. thinks that those companies completely dominate their respective markets (which are growing) and are insulated from competition. They don't think that for AAPL. Instead they generally believe AAPL is perpetually at risk to fickle consumers and low-priced mobile devices. AAPL needs other major lines of business to offset this doom and gloom perception. Eventually, after this happens, the institutional money flows back into AAPL and the stock moves higher. Until then, the stock will probably stay in the $500-600 range.
Exactly! I agree with you. It is now incumbent on Apple to re-prove it's capable of producing magic products or a killer app. The overwhelming denial of the partisans on this site continues to confound me. You are not the arbiters, Wall Street is! The title of this article suggest Institutional ownership of Apple has sunk to a 5 year low. That is undeniable and the reason is these investors no longer believe Apple is capable of producing magic anything. That's why I'm correct in saying Apple must RE-PROVE itself to Wall Street and in the marketplace. This is undeniable.
Apple also still battle a hatred by many of the old diehard PC v Apple types who hate the fact Apple has clearly trounced Microsoft and they transfer this hate now to wanting to see Scamsung and Google get their revenge.
And there I was thinking Apple had become a boring old stolid blue chip! Maybe this is good news after all ...
Musk is an entrepreneur, a person who is driven to start companies and grow them as if they were his kids. Tim Cook is comfortable growing and managing an already established very large company. There are differences and Musk is not someone who would feel at home managing Apple.
It's never too late to call out a troll. Even after you are five or more responses into the thread when you finally realized that you’ve been suckered…
Sometimes it takes that long to see it. That’s a sign of near-human intelligence on their part. Rare thing.
Well, that’s totally wrong.