BS. Apple employees (at HQ, not talking about retail drones, since you specifically tied this to SF real estate) are almost certainly among the top 20% (probably top 5%) of salaried employees in the US. No one should be losing any sleep over how they are scraping by.
Oh stop with the Wall Street FUD bullsh1t. People have been saying we reached peak iPhone in 2012. China is adding 100,000,000 upper middle class consumers every year and Apple will steal the 80,000,000 high end samsung buyers.
This is the problem with the stock market. They calculate a company's market cap taking the outstanding shares by the cost (not value) of each share. ...The stock market doesn't have anything to do with the value of any company, it's completely a separate gambling institution.
Getting back to Google. They're almost like the stock market. Like you said, they really don't produce anything, they just manage a huge service selling advertisements along with people's personal information. The actual products you can touch are usually fluff and never hit the market and when they do, there's no way they could keep Google in the black for very long.
At this point, there's no way to change the stock market to actually be about investing in a company, with the invested money going to the company and investors reaping the benefits or losing their money (just like the stock market). The only difference with this plan is that Apple would get my money directly instead of it going to a bunch of traders. ....Why would anyone invest in Google when they don't sell anything other than advertising?
The Market Cap is most certainly the value of a company since by paying somewhat above the market cap, one can buy the company. That's not to say that Wall Street doesn't sometimes over-value a company or base a value on vapor, but it doesn't matter since that's what it would take to buy it.
Google: Love 'em or hate 'em, believe it or not, selling advertising is a real business (have you heard of Television?) and Google is very good at it. Just because they don't manufacture a physical product doesn't mean it doesn't have value. Google advertisers obviously feel that there's a return on that investment, just as TV/cable program advertisers feel there's a return on that investment. Do you think that CBS/NBC/ABC/Fox/Discovery/Turner/MTV Networks/AMC Networks, etc. aren't real businesses? They're all advertising driven.
Investing in companies: When a company issues NEW shares, you are investing directly in the company. And the company gets benefit when the share price rises because it maintains X amount of shares themselves. When Apple sells shares, they no longer own those particular shares. Why should they benefit directly (other than the shares they own) when the price rises?
200 shares purchased this morning, better not drop due to SCRATCHGATE bullshit...long, Apple...my target is $135 by Christmas.
Jumping on a rapidly rising stock is really good way to get burned. As evidence, the stock is down right now. Of course, over the longer term it will continue to rise, barring unforeseen events beyond Apple's control.
Can't help thinking IBM would make a nice addition to the new Campus ... no overlap in their technologies and a fabulous portfolio these days and lots of IP and talent.
You're thinking along the right lines.
Earlier this year, Apple and IBM formed a partnership.
BS. Apple employees (at HQ, not talking about retail drones, since you specifically tied this to SF real estate) are almost certainly among the top 20% (probably top 5%) of salaried employees in the US. No one should be losing any sleep over how they are scraping by.
Are you working for Apple? My brother does and he makes a lot less than my brother in law working at EA, similar position. He's expected to work his ass off even night and weekends. If you don't know, stfu.
For someone who is a momentum investor or looking for a fast buck, it could be a problem.
It's not a "problem." There are thousands of stocks to choose from. There is no requirement for Apple's management team to please every single type of investor on the planet.
If you are one of those types of investors, you look at any given investment and figure out whether or not it fits your criteria. Most stocks will not, so you simply move on to the next stock. Same thing with a stock you own. If it has not performed to your expectations and there's something that you feel is a better investment today, then you buy that and dump the poor performer. A stock isn't a spouse.
For a different kind of investor -- let's say the "I want a diversified portfolio with many long-term investments that outperforms the S&P 500" -- AAPL is a serious consideration.
If you want big volatility, go buy TWTR on the right day.
It's not a "problem." There are thousands of stocks to choose from. There is no requirement for Apple's management team to please every single type of investor on the planet.
If you are one of those types of investors, you look at any given investment and figure out whether or not it fits your criteria. Most stocks will not, so you simply move on to the next stock. Same thing with a stock you own. If it has not performed to your expectations and there's something that you feel is a better investment today, then you buy that and dump the poor performer. A stock isn't a spouse.
For a different kind of investor -- let's say the "I want a diversified portfolio with many long-term investments that outperforms the S&P 500" -- AAPL is a serious consideration.
If you want big volatility, go buy TWTR on the right day.
Most wise investors should be able to say the same thing.
If you don't like your investments, make a change so you are. Like I said, there are plenty of investment types for all sorts of investors. At the end of the day, each investor needs to be able to sleep.
Note that investments never stay static. Companies change, interest rates fluctuate, tax-free municipal bonds get called, your tax situation changes, et cetera.
Good investments for a childless 25-year-old likely are not be the same as good investments for a 50-year-old married parent of three, nor a 75-year-old retiree.
That's just it, they're an ad company with a bunch of hugely unprofitable side projects. The side projects are a desperate attempt to keep themselves relevant.
On a side note, I was reading a fiction book today with Macs in it. I facepalmed when they had a character do a "Control-C" keystroke on a Mac.
I use "Control-C" often on my Mac. I'm a developer and routinely use the Unix terminal, where I launch various command line processes. If I want to terminate one early, I use "Control-C".
Did the fiction book you were reading, by any chance, say what the character was doing prior to using "Control-C"? If it didn't specifically say, then it's not specifically wrong.
I want Apple to beat Microsoft's record in '99. What do they need $100B or so more?
Apple already eclipsed Microsoft's record if you just consider the dollar amounts. But not so if adjusted for inflation, so I assume that's what you're getting at. The problem there is that there are competing methods for adjusting for inflation, and their results often strongly vary.
Apple already eclipsed Microsoft's record if you just consider the dollar amounts. But not so if adjusted for inflation, so I assume that's what you're getting at. The problem there is that there are competing methods for adjusting for inflation, and their results often strongly vary.
Let's calculate those valuations in inflation-adjusted Bitcoins.
Comments
Cheap very cheap
BS. Apple employees (at HQ, not talking about retail drones, since you specifically tied this to SF real estate) are almost certainly among the top 20% (probably top 5%) of salaried employees in the US. No one should be losing any sleep over how they are scraping by.
As of right now AAPL is down on the day. I'm sure it will close at or over $700B at some point but it looks like it won't be today.
Samsung has 80M high end customers???
If the way bendgate fizzled out (except from the dedicated Apple-haters who gotta have attack memes) is any sign, I think your investment is safe.
This is the problem with the stock market. They calculate a company's market cap taking the outstanding shares by the cost (not value) of each share. ...The stock market doesn't have anything to do with the value of any company, it's completely a separate gambling institution.
Getting back to Google. They're almost like the stock market. Like you said, they really don't produce anything, they just manage a huge service selling advertisements along with people's personal information. The actual products you can touch are usually fluff and never hit the market and when they do, there's no way they could keep Google in the black for very long.
At this point, there's no way to change the stock market to actually be about investing in a company, with the invested money going to the company and investors reaping the benefits or losing their money (just like the stock market). The only difference with this plan is that Apple would get my money directly instead of it going to a bunch of traders. ....Why would anyone invest in Google when they don't sell anything other than advertising?
The Market Cap is most certainly the value of a company since by paying somewhat above the market cap, one can buy the company. That's not to say that Wall Street doesn't sometimes over-value a company or base a value on vapor, but it doesn't matter since that's what it would take to buy it.
Google: Love 'em or hate 'em, believe it or not, selling advertising is a real business (have you heard of Television?) and Google is very good at it. Just because they don't manufacture a physical product doesn't mean it doesn't have value. Google advertisers obviously feel that there's a return on that investment, just as TV/cable program advertisers feel there's a return on that investment. Do you think that CBS/NBC/ABC/Fox/Discovery/Turner/MTV Networks/AMC Networks, etc. aren't real businesses? They're all advertising driven.
Investing in companies: When a company issues NEW shares, you are investing directly in the company. And the company gets benefit when the share price rises because it maintains X amount of shares themselves. When Apple sells shares, they no longer own those particular shares. Why should they benefit directly (other than the shares they own) when the price rises?
Sell the house, sell the farm, sell the kids, sell the car and buy Apple stock now, before it is too late.
200 shares purchased this morning, better not drop due to SCRATCHGATE bullshit...long, Apple...my target is $135 by Christmas.
Jumping on a rapidly rising stock is really good way to get burned. As evidence, the stock is down right now. Of course, over the longer term it will continue to rise, barring unforeseen events beyond Apple's control.
My OCD will not be satisfied until Apple hits one Trillion
I love to ask Siri what Apple's market cap is. Last night, hearing her say "Six hundred ninety-six billion dollars" put a huge grin on my face.
You cannot be sirious.
Can't help thinking IBM would make a nice addition to the new Campus ... no overlap in their technologies and a fabulous portfolio these days and lots of IP and talent.
You're thinking along the right lines.
Earlier this year, Apple and IBM formed a partnership.
This is great and all but I hope we don't get a Breaking
report every time we get an uptick in the stock price.
To be fair $700 billion is a significant milestone
Indeed.
Almost a hundred dollars for every man alive.
For someone who is a momentum investor or looking for a fast buck, it could be a problem.
For someone who is a momentum investor or looking for a fast buck, it could be a problem.
It's not a "problem." There are thousands of stocks to choose from. There is no requirement for Apple's management team to please every single type of investor on the planet.
If you are one of those types of investors, you look at any given investment and figure out whether or not it fits your criteria. Most stocks will not, so you simply move on to the next stock. Same thing with a stock you own. If it has not performed to your expectations and there's something that you feel is a better investment today, then you buy that and dump the poor performer. A stock isn't a spouse.
For a different kind of investor -- let's say the "I want a diversified portfolio with many long-term investments that outperforms the S&P 500" -- AAPL is a serious consideration.
If you want big volatility, go buy TWTR on the right day.
Personally, I'm quite happy with my investments.
Most wise investors should be able to say the same thing.
If you don't like your investments, make a change so you are. Like I said, there are plenty of investment types for all sorts of investors. At the end of the day, each investor needs to be able to sleep.
Note that investments never stay static. Companies change, interest rates fluctuate, tax-free municipal bonds get called, your tax situation changes, et cetera.
Good investments for a childless 25-year-old likely are not be the same as good investments for a 50-year-old married parent of three, nor a 75-year-old retiree.
That's just it, they're an ad company with a bunch of hugely unprofitable side projects. The side projects are a desperate attempt to keep themselves relevant.
On a side note, I was reading a fiction book today with Macs in it. I facepalmed when they had a character do a "Control-C" keystroke on a Mac.
I use "Control-C" often on my Mac. I'm a developer and routinely use the Unix terminal, where I launch various command line processes. If I want to terminate one early, I use "Control-C".
Did the fiction book you were reading, by any chance, say what the character was doing prior to using "Control-C"? If it didn't specifically say, then it's not specifically wrong.
I want Apple to beat Microsoft's record in '99. What do they need $100B or so more?
Apple already eclipsed Microsoft's record if you just consider the dollar amounts. But not so if adjusted for inflation, so I assume that's what you're getting at. The problem there is that there are competing methods for adjusting for inflation, and their results often strongly vary.
Let's calculate those valuations in inflation-adjusted Bitcoins.
yup i second with this opinion.