Apple sells 47.5M iPhones in record-breaking Q3, revenue jumps 33% to $49.6B

14567810»

Comments

  • Reply 181 of 187
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Yojimbo007 View Post





    My first question to u was to elaborate...

    Got an upity answer from you.... And you claimed nothing strange has happened...... And that Itis the ignorance of others that dont get it !



    Maybe you should study a bit more .. And inform yourself.....

     

    I am very well informed, and sick of questions from people who can't bothered to figure anything out on their own. Just read back through the thread. Most of what you need to know is there already. If you can be bothered.

     

    Edit: Which, obviously, was way too much trouble for you.

  • Reply 182 of 187
    yojimbo007yojimbo007 Posts: 1,165member
    I am very well informed, and sick of questions from people who can't bothered to figure anything out on their own. Just read back through the thread. Most of what you need to know is there already. If you can be bothered.

    Son.. You are out to lunch... You have wasted your time posting yet communicating zero useful insight.
    Best of luck to u ..
  • Reply 183 of 187
    ds92jzds92jz Posts: 90member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by OriginalG View Post

     



     

    Shareholders actually 'own' part of the company, they vote to decide on things like the board of directors so the "we" in the case I'm referring to can actually affect how the company runs. The company pays dividends to the shareholders. None of that applies to a ticket holder of a sports team. I'm not sure what your original point is. Shareholders are very much part of the company, they're not 3rd party spectators.


    Tell me something I don't know.

     

    I'll tell you something you don't know and that is sarcasm. Get some.

  • Reply 184 of 187
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    shahhet2 wrote: »
    Are you telling us that you now own 5000*7 = 35000 stocks of Apple or holding over 4.5 million dollars of Apple stock?
    Lets say you have little diversified portfolio, where you have 50% appl stocks and 50% rest of stocks, you have your portfolio close to 10mil $.
    What are you doing here, go and enjoy your world cruise  or may be own one ;)

    No, I now have about 88,000 shares, which includes some bought during the recession. I would have bought more when it dipped to $400, but didn't have enough free cash to make it worthwhile.

    Look, no one thought that Apple would get this high. But I can be very persistent. I decided to let it sit. As I said, the initial investment wasn't that big. But it's well outgrown everything. My other investments grew well enough, but if I had invested everything in Apple back mid 2004, I would be popping 9 figures.
  • Reply 185 of 187
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    foggyhill wrote: »
    Right, you're actually acting like PE is actually a real number linked to real earnings instead of future imaginary ones.

    So, your telling me Amazon's PE is actually linked to present value of future earnings given an expected rate or return.... Hmmm.

    Either Amazon's going to have massive earnings eventually (not likely in retail with competition expanding by the minute and their position not strenghtening) or they'll magically invent a  high margin huge revenue industry, one they haven't though about in the last 20 years; people are taking amazing amount or risk for this minute chance of this massive profit (high rate of return required); or well, its all just a big ol' ponzi and the last one left with the stock when it tanks loses almost everything.

    I'm going for the third option for this stock, and most tech stocks. For those stocks, you don't really look at the company's anything, but how people "feel" about them. A market psychologist (if such a person could exist) is the best person to invest short term... It may be still worth while to invest in those tech companies, but with no expectation that the stock will track closely with a company's reality in the short term (in this case, finding good times to buy a fine stock when inevitable quasi random variation appears is the skill that's really needed).

    Stock price has been disconnected from the reality a long time ago; it's no more than gambling for most people.
    Having lost 125K in 2002-2003 (25% of my investment at the time). I learned many lessons the hard way.; I don't look at stock prices short term ever, even for tech firms.

    I invested heavily in the stock market since the early 1990s and I've heard every justifications for pricing of tech stocks under the sun.
    Actually worked in a very large startup at a senior level in the late 1990s in Silicon Valley (Freemont) and saw what kind of financial crap goes in tech firms and around tech firms. It aint pretty!

    Funny enough, the bigger a company is, and the more defined and less fuzzy the market is (hardware sales vs service) the harder it is for people to justify their delusion and shell game. That makes people nervous. You know reality, They don't often have to think about it when they trade stocks/buy lottery tickets.  That's why Apple's stock is depressed compared to other tech firms.

    In actuality, Apple's stock is only slightly below where I think it should be, it is the other stocks that are in wacko land.

    I never said it was real, and I don't know why you think I did.

    Well, few financial numbers other than ones relating directly to the business are "real". P/E is expectations. It's a psychological tale. Unfortunately, it's often treated as though it's real. As far as I'm concerned, Amazon should be valued at 10% of what it is right now. Look at what happened today. They made a tiny $95 million in profit, and look what happened to the stock. Look at what happened to Google.

    If Apple's anticipated numbers were just 2% lower, Apple would have beat them, and the stock would have gone up a few percent. This is all psychology. Why is a P/E of 10 considered to be about right for industrials, but 18 all right for technology? Because Technology is expected to grow faster, and have larger net margins.

    But why not 5 for industrials, and 10 for technology? Or how about 15 for industrials and 25 for technology? No really good reason I can think of.
  • Reply 186 of 187
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member

    As an investor, of course, I strive for a monopolistic scenario. And that there are victims in the context of "market consolidation" is clear to me as well. What I am driving at is the - to me - unrealistic expectation that whatever Apple does, it has to excel, even not "just grow". There are many big and long-lasting companies in the Fortune 500, but it seems only Apple is required to prove itself in this extreme way, unlike Goolge, Facebook, just to name two from a similar field. Personally, I sometimes feel that WallStreet doesn't like Apple and is suspicious about the company due to their way of "thinking differently", as though behind it all they are a small garage shop filled with hippies from the 70s. sigh....

    Expectations vary by industry. No one would reasonably expect Walmart to have a 21% net as Apple does, because in that industry, even with Walmart being the size they are, profits are slim, and in fact these of Walmart are around 3.5%. They also don't expect growth to be more than in the mid single digits a gear, and usually in the low single digits.

    So we look at Walmart's valuation, and we see that it's $233.5 billion, which is less than half of its yearly sales. Yet, it has a P/E of 14.5.

    Apple has a valuation of $714 billion, which is 3.5 times its yearly sales, and the P/E is 15.6, very similar to that of Walmart.

    So it's just expectations.

    But monopolies have their own problems, which is that they're heavily regulated, and can't do everything a non monopoly can do.

    Oh, and I was wondering. Is there a WonkoTheInsane as well.
Sign In or Register to comment.