Apple stock closes at all time high as company aims for future growth

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 45
    Lest we forget: This is the same Jim Cramer who said, 18 months ago, "Apple is becoming the JC Penney of tech. I think that there is a sense that the company is in a tailspin, and it doesn't seem to matter what they do right now," and, "Whatever product that is coming out in September is a clear loser. We haven't seen it yet, but it is a loser." Perhaps anti-Apple idiocy is governed by a Fibonacci series; each foolish misprediction must outdo the previous one.
  • Reply 22 of 45

    I love watching analysts be wrong about Apple. And where are all the trolls from last year and earlier this year who said Apple will be trading at $30? Nevermind, I really don't care where they are. As long as they're not here.

  • Reply 23 of 45
    rob53rob53 Posts: 3,126member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post





    I was reading Apple's 10-K the other day and it's fascinating to see how big Apple has become in just the past 5 years. Apple revenue is up 180% in the last 5 years, profits up 182%. Cash has increased a whopping 204%. Apple generates in one quarter almost HALF the profits they generated for all of fiscal year 2010. In fiscal year 2006 Apple reported $1.9B profit. This year it was over $39B. That's almost a 2,000% increase in profits in less than a decade. Has any other company ever put up numbers like that?

    And yet, analysts still can't get their heads out of the dark place and give Apple its due. They will continue to do anything they can to drive AAPL down simply because Apple is on the left coast and they aren't. Those right coast financial people just can't accept the fact that the left coast is where all the money is: Apple, (ugh) Google, even Microsoft, (ugh) Amazon, Facebook, and just about every other meaningful American technology company. They're simply jealous. :-)

  • Reply 24 of 45
    mpantonempantone Posts: 1,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post



    I was reading Apple's 10-K the other day and it's fascinating to see how big Apple has become in just the past 5 years. Apple revenue is up 180% in the last 5 years, profits up 182%. Cash has increased a whopping 204%. Apple generates in one quarter almost HALF the profits they generated for all of fiscal year 2010. In fiscal year 2006 Apple reported $1.9B profit. This year it was over $39B. That's almost a 2,000% increase in profits in less than a decade. Has any other company ever put up numbers like that?



    Maybe Netflix although I haven't looked closely at their numbers. Basically, Netflix destroyed Blockbuster.

     

    For sure, over the past ten years, NFLX stock price has gone up higher than AAPL. Ignoring all other measures of fiscal performance (debt, book value, etc.), Netflix has returned a better increase in shareholder value than most other companies (including Apple) over a ten year period.

     

    That said, any tech stock that considerably outperforms the Nasdaq should be considered for inclusion in a diversfied portfolio.

  • Reply 25 of 45
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,576member
    buckalec wrote: »
    Cramer  - a dangerous, self-promoting and extremely egotistical man. Meet him a few times in a professional capacity - which just reinforced that he is a dangerous, self-promoting and extremely egotistical man. 

    Good to hear my personal opinion is back up by someone who knows more. If Cramer were simply entertaining that would one thing. Ever since he got cornered, on camera, admitting his shenanigans with AAPL this guy should have been barred from giving stock advice.

    http://appleinsider.com/articles/09/03/13/jon_stewart_exposes_apple_stock_manipulation
  • Reply 26 of 45
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,576member
    sog35 wrote: »
    Jim Cramer is an entertainer first and foremost.  He needs ratings to get $.

    Jim Cramer has been BEARISH and BULLISH on Apple multiple times in the last 2 years.

    All the valid info you need on Apple is disclosed on the SEC filings that are public.  I'd say that 5% of the information spewed by analysis or TV talking heads have worth.  Just ignore the other 95%.

    Yep and I'd add, throwing darts at a board for stock tips would probably get higher than 5% correct.

    Cramer should have been legally prevented from ever talking stocks on TV/Radio/Print/Web again after his admission of manipulation and fired by CNBC. Not to mentioned fined, keelhauled and banished from the USA. Did I mention tar and feathers?
  • Reply 27 of 45
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,576member
    If I couldn't own their stock, I'd have to go work for them.

    Get in line ...
  • Reply 28 of 45
    jasenj1jasenj1 Posts: 922member

    The stock is up because I put a buy order in at $100 a week ago. Now I get to watch the price go up and up away from my asking price. :(

     

    But the shares I already own are making me smile - except the ones I bought @~$700, the S&P is up 30+% since then, while I'm just starting to turn a profit.

     

    - Jasen.

  • Reply 29 of 45
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,026member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

     

    I wish ? were a private company.




    What does that really even mean? Apple is a private company in so far as it's not a state-owned company. 

     

    But do you mean that you don't want ordinary people to be able to own part of Apple? Do you want it owned by a few billionaires? Why is that a good thing exactly? 

     

    Or do you mean that you want it to be an employee-owned company (like an ESOP)? I could see that making sense. But then as someone else said, I'd have to go work for them. 

  • Reply 30 of 45
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,026member

    "Apple's shares since the report was published have defied the natural laws of geometric broccoli"

     

    This is an occasion where the Dilger snark is totally on target. These CNBC charlatans deserve every last bit of scorn that we can throw at them. 

  • Reply 31 of 45
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,576member
    blastdoor wrote: »
    "Apple's shares since the report was published have defied the natural laws of geometric broccoli"

    This is an occasion where the Dilger snark is totally on target. These CNBC charlatans deserve every last bit of scorn that we can throw at them. 

    Got to love fractals.

    and ... and ... what about the Law Of Large Numbers? Anyone caring to check back on AI when AAPL hovered at 700 will find lots of experts explaining, at great length i should add, that AAPL could not go over 700 ... nor could Apple grow any more. It was all math. Ha!
  • Reply 32 of 45
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,576member
    sog35 wrote: »
    But at what risk?  I can EASILY see Netflix drop 75% in a few years.

    The first rule of investing:  More return equals greater risk.  Less risk equals less return.

    There are very few exceptions.  Those happen when the market severly undervalues a stock.  EXA. Apple in 2013 at $380

    Why do you think Netflix is likely to drop that much?
  • Reply 33 of 45
    All tech stocks are risky including Apple. 

     

    Apple is just one bad iPhone release from their stock dropping 30% to 50%. Do I actually think it will happen? No. 

     

    Don't put all your eggs in one basket. Diversification across sectors is key. In fact if you're not a seasoned investor forget individual stocks and do index funds insteads.

     

    And for heaven's sake ignore any "advice" from Jim Cramer. He does not have your best interest at heart.

  • Reply 34 of 45
    darelrex wrote: »
    Lest we forget: This is the same Jim Cramer who said, 18 months ago, "Apple is becoming the JC Penney of tech. I think that there is a sense that the company is in a tailspin, and it doesn't seem to matter what they do right now," and, "Whatever product that is coming out in September is a clear loser. We haven't seen it yet, but it is a loser." Perhaps anti-Apple idiocy is governed by a Fibonacci series; each foolish misprediction must outdo the previous one.

    Cramer and his opinions should be immediately flushed.
  • Reply 35 of 45
    Thanks for the laugh! Keep calling the stock numerologists and their followers out, it's good for everyone concerned. It keeps us focused.
  • Reply 36 of 45
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,026member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post





    Got to love fractals.



    and ... and ... what about the Law Of Large Numbers? Anyone caring to check back on AI when AAPL hovered at 700 will find lots of experts explaining, at great length i should add, that AAPL could not go over 700 ... nor could Apple grow any more. It was all math. Ha!



    The term "Law of Large Numbers" comes from probability/statistics, and the people who use it in the context of $AAPL appear to mean something else. In the context of probability/statistics, it just means that over multiple repetitions of the same process (for example, a coin toss), the average outcome of those repetitions will converge to the "true" average. So, if one were to apply that idea to $AAPL, I guess the notion would be that Apple just got lucky with a few products, but over time their luck will run out, and they'll revert to being just like any other company (some products are hits, some are misses, and on average you do just a little better than break even). 

     

    But I don't think that's what most people mean when they use that term for $AAPL. I think what they mean is that Apple is becoming so large that it's becoming mathematically impossible for it to grow faster than the economy as a whole. The problem with that idea is that Apple just isn't that big relative to the world economy. I suspect the reason people get confused here is that they remember a world in which the market for personal computers was mostly just the US, with Western Europe and Japan adding a little bit extra. Relative to that market (circa 1990), the Apple of 2014 is indeed quite large. But that's no longer the world we live in. Compared to the global economy, Apple is still small (even though it's the biggest company in the world) and has a lot of room to grow. 

     

    We've used the term "multinational" for a long time. But Apple is really taking that idea to a new level. Apple is big in a way that no other company has been big before. Apple is the first, but it probably won't be the last...

  • Reply 37 of 45
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post



    Why do you think Netflix is likely to drop that much?

    I have no idea if it will drop that much (although the fundamentals suggest it's terribly overvalued), but that aside, I can see HBO's newly announced pricing scheme for streaming to be a huge negative for Netflix.

  • Reply 38 of 45
    mpantonempantone Posts: 1,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    But at what risk?  I can EASILY see Netflix drop 75% in a few years.

     

    The first rule of investing:  More return equals greater risk.  Less risk equals less return.

     

    There are very few exceptions.  Those happen when the market severly undervalues a stock.  EXA. Apple in 2013 at $380




    Well, it's up to the individual investor to do the risk assessment himself/herself, just like almost anything in life. Do you get married to that girl, have kids, drive over the speed limit, buy that house/car/shirt?

     

    That's why I used the term diversified portfolio. Not that anyone with half a clue would be reading random, anonymous bboards like AppleInsider for investment advice.

  • Reply 39 of 45
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    realistic wrote: »

    Cite proof of your assumption based on prior years taxes paid or crawl back under your bridge.


    Apple does between 60 and 70% of it's revenue worldwide.

    http://www.statista.com/statistics/263435/non-us-share-of-apples-revenue/

    It pays less than 2% of it's tax on Global revenue ( most declared in Ireland).

    Many sources of course. Here's wiki

    Almost all of Apple's foreign operations are run through an Irish company with no employees.
    Apple pays 2%—or less—in corporate income tax in Ireland.[Note 2]


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Apple_Inc.

    Assuming that the ratio of revenues to profits are about equal in the US and Worldwide.

    That gives us:

    60% * 0.02 + 40% * 0.35 = 15.2% last Q

    and

    68% * 0.02 + 32% * 0.35 = 12.9% previous Q when the US was less important in the mix.

    This assumes that Apple is paying exactly 35% on all profits in the US.
  • Reply 40 of 45
    realisticrealistic Posts: 1,154member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by asdasd View Post





    Apple does between 60 and 70% of it's revenue worldwide.



    http://www.statista.com/statistics/263435/non-us-share-of-apples-revenue/



    It pays less than 2% of it's tax on Global revenue ( most declared in Ireland).



    Many sources of course. Here's wiki



    Almost all of Apple's foreign operations are run through an Irish company with no employees.

    Apple pays 2%—or less—in corporate income tax in Ireland.[Note 2]




    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Apple_Inc.



    Assuming that revenues and profits are about equal in the US and Worldwide.



    Which gives us



    60% * 0.02 + 40% * 0.35 = 15.2% last Q



    and



    68% * 0.02 + 32% * 0.35 = 12.9% last Q



    This assumes that Apple is paying exactly 35% on all profits in the US.

    In fiscal 2014, Apple accounted for $13.9 billion in taxes, including $8.6 billion paid in federal U.S. taxes and $855 million in state tax and with $2.1 billion in foreign taxes. That gave the company an effective tax rate of 26.1 percent and made it a top U.S. taxpayer. The company also paid out $11 billion in dividends, triggering an additional windfall of U.S and state income taxes from the company's recipient shareholders.

     

Sign In or Register to comment.