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

1235710

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 187
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     



    well go keep trusting 'beating expectations' as your guide.  That may work for the short term but not the long term.


    Really? My stock is up just a little bit since April 2004, when I bought most of what I have now. So I suppose you're right, I'm not doing too well with it.

  • Reply 82 of 187
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post



    On the conference call Cook just said ?Watch sales were higher in June than April or May. Just shows how that Slice Intelligence data provided no good reading on Watch sales.



    Horace Diedu had a good article about that. He's right. They're new at this, and this is the first time anyone has used the "count the online receipt" method, so no one knows whether it works or not. I suspect it does nothing more than to give us a bit of info. It misses the people changing from online buying when the watch became available in stores. It also misses everything out of the States.

  • Reply 83 of 187
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kForceZero View Post

     

     

    I was merely speaking in relative terms.  Of course I agree AAPL is a high flying stock by any reasonable measure.  But if you ascribe to the OP's notion that AAPL is not currently a high-flying stock then I can't see how an extra $5.30 (about 4%) would make it so.




    When did I say that? The poster that I replied to said that. My reply was just the opposite.

  • Reply 84 of 187
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,397member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post



    I keep hearing about how the market is rational. But anyone who is in the market knows that the market is irrational. If it weren't, you would be right, and no one would ever make any money. Because money is made by beating the expectations.

     

    Yes, over time price will be accrual, but the market wouldn't really exist.


    Actually, this is a misunderstanding of not only what markets do, but also what investors should mean when they use the term 'rational.'

     

    Stocks can be fully and 'rationally' priced in a market relative to expectations of future free cash flows discounted at the risk-adjusted discount rate, and yet, individuals could still make (or lose) money by placing bets one way or another: cash flows and risks can always surprise going forward, relative to expectations.

     

    When one uses the term 'rational', it is important to distinguish between ex ante and ex post. Lots of things we do look 'irrational' after-the-fact, but may have been perfectly 'rational' before-the-fact given the information, judgments, and expectations at hand at that time. People can only be intendedly rational before-the-fact. In other words, no one wakes up in the morning and goes, "today, I will lose money." That's all the concept of rationality implies. To ascribe any other meaning to it in this context is incorrect.

     

    The funny thing about financial markets is, it's like holding a mirror. It can be whatever you want it to be. Efficient. Inefficient. Rigged. Not rigged. Short term. Long term. Luck. Skill. Guidance for the future. Margins delivered this past quarter.

     

    But to take any one of those views and argue for it being etched in stone is not tenable.

  • Reply 85 of 187
    retrogustoretrogusto Posts: 1,101member

    In the end, I don't see how it wouldn't bounce back pretty quickly. If earnings per share are up 45% YOY, that is going to push the P/E down from its already low point, and once people get over the fact that the numbers didn't beat the estimates of a few overzealous analysts (but did beat guidance, some analyst surveys, and broke the existing record for the quarter), they are bound to notice that the stock is even more unreasonably cheap than usual, and the price will start reflecting that.

     

    It's also worth noting that as Apple's cash balance continues to increase (now over $200 billion), the ex-cash P/E diverges further and further from the P/E that most people are looking at.

  • Reply 86 of 187
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by melgross View Post

     



    What? Explain how those two statements contradict each other. Despite what he said, the stock went up bcause Apple was doing better. Buybacks and dividends had little to do with it.


     

    I think I misunderstood your first comment.  I thought you were implying the stock went up because of dividends.  My bad.

  • Reply 87 of 187
    herbapouherbapou Posts: 2,228member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post

     



    What? Explain how those two statements contradict each other. Despite what he said, the stock went up bcause Apple was doing better. Buybacks and dividends had little to do with it.




    Actually buybacks is what supported the stock when it went below $400 and it reduce to number of shares, which improves EPS. In the long run, if a company is making a lot of cash flow and is buying back shares, its rising its stock price.  

     

    That being said, growth is more important indeed.

  • Reply 88 of 187
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by melgross View Post

     



    When did I say that? The poster that I replied to said that. My reply was just the opposite.


    I never said you said that, I was merely explaining my earlier comment.

  • Reply 89 of 187
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,397member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by herbapou View Post



    Actually buybacks is what supported the stock when it went below $400 and it reduce to number of shares, which in terms improves EPS. In the long run, if a company is making a lot of cash flow and it buying back shares, its rising is stock price.  


    If that were true, all companies could simply buy back all their shares all the time, and everyone would be happy.

  • Reply 90 of 187
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

     

    Actually, this is a misunderstanding of not only what markets do, but also what investors should mean when they use the term 'rational.'

     

    Stocks can be fully and 'rationally' priced in a market relative to expectations of future free cash flows discounted at the risk-adjusted discount rate, and yet, individuals could still make (or lose) money by placing bets one way or another: cash flows and risks can always surprise going forward, relative to expectations.

     

    When one uses the term 'rational', it is important to distinguish between ex ante and ex post. Lots of things we do look 'irrational' after-the-fact, but may have been perfectly 'rational' before-the-fact given the information, judgments, and expectations at hand at that time. People can only be intendedly rational before-the-fact. In other words, no one wakes up in the morning and goes, "today, I will lose money." That's all the concept of rationality implies. To ascribe any other meaning to it in this context is incorrect.

     

    The funny thing about financial markets is, it's like holding a mirror. It can be whatever you want it to be. Efficient. Inefficient. Rigged. Not rigged. Short term. Long term. Luck. Skill. Guidance for the future. Margins delivered this past quarter.

     

    But to take any one of those views and argue for it being etched in stone is not tenable.




    The term "rational" when describing the way the market works means that every financial investment is priced at the exact price it should be. Since it isn't, it's not rational. This isn't my definition. It's the accepted one. Obviously, it's an oversimplification. But, do you think Apple is priced properly? I don't. Do you think Amazon is priced properly? I don't.

  • Reply 91 of 187
    herbapou wrote: »

    If the estimates are right or wrong is irrelevant, the stock price pre-earnings was based on them regardless. Price action is based on estimates VS results. If someone thinks the estimates are too high before earnings, he should sell before and buy back after.

    That being said, I will go with Jim Cramer and say just own Apple, dont trade it.   Not trading it also means DO NOT own any short term options, if you want to leverage with options, buy + 1 year or +2 years deep in the money or do a call spread. I always move all of my options to leaps before earnings. Sometimes I play with small amounts at + 3 months, but not too much.  

    This time around I had 10 november 2015 calls at $150 strikes.  Its a very small out of the money play just in case.

    EXACTLY!
    If you thought 50 million was too much to beat, then you were being greedy by taking that nice jump and not selling leading into earnings hoping for more.

    The stock went up because the bulls pumped the stock. If you forum guys knew they were manipulating the stock to insane levels just so they can sell before earnings then it would be simple to do that too. Buy low sell high.

    If you thought aapl could beat expectations, like I did, you get what you deserve. But if you bought back in 2008 you are still winning big, like more than 10x return so you already have been paid. Even if you bought during the split you still got decent coin. If you bought today then sorry, just take the loss as a lesson: expectations drive up price and if they don't pan out you lose, at least in the short run. But hang on, you may still make it back in the long run with dividends to help you out, and hopefully you're not invested in just one stock.
  • Reply 92 of 187
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,757member
    Well yes. Of course they sold that many. Because .....

    Ecosystem, and the hardware and software driving it.

    Sheer quality. No one can even come close to Apple's level of comprehensive integration.

    It's all in the photo.

    [IMG]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/61151/width/200/height/400[/IMG]

    Who else has THAT? Totally fleshed out. You won't find this level of attention to detail anywhere else.
  • Reply 93 of 187
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

     



    Actually buybacks is what supported the stock when it went below $400 and it reduce to number of shares, which improves EPS. In the long run, if a company is making a lot of cash flow and is buying back shares, its rising its stock price.  

     

     




    Can you prove that? It's theory that buybacks raise the stock price. I understand what a buyback does to equity per share. But, there is no single bit of solid evidence that it brings the price up permanently. I've seen many buybacks since I began investing back when I was a kid in 1963. None have ever reliably brought that price up, and had it stay there. It's a great deal of money that could otherwise be used to enhance the business.

  • Reply 94 of 187
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,397member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by melgross View Post



    The term "rational" when describing the way the market works means that every financial investment is priced at the exact price it should be. Since it isn't, it's not rational. This isn't my definition. It's the accepted one. Obviously, it's an oversimplification. But, do you think Apple is priced properly? I don't. Do you think Amazon is priced properly? I don't.


    Where did you find this definition? I've heard of market 'efficiency' defined this way.

  • Reply 95 of 187
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by kForceZero View Post

     

    I never said you said that, I was merely explaining my earlier comment.




    "But if you ascribe to the OP's notion that AAPL is not currently a high-flying stock then I can't see how an extra $5.30 (about 4%) would make it so."

     

    That was your comment making a statement as to what you thought I meant. I stated that I never said that. It was the proper response.

  • Reply 96 of 187
    sumergosumergo Posts: 215member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post



    Hmm. A bit disappointed at Mac sales.

    It's hard to be too disappointed at this AAPL trend over five years - with ~ $20 added to the share price each year.

     

     

    Hang in there and hold, buy when it dips, sell when you need.  I'm not a market expert, but despite the so-called analysts who say they are, I feel Apple can continue to deliver an enhanced, usable, tech experience and surprise/over-perform for at least the next five years.

     

    Why?  Volume in China and elsewhere.  Continued Watch/iPhone integration in health and other "personal" app spaces.  Apple/IBM expansion in the mobile business arena.

  • Reply 97 of 187
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

     

    Where did you find this definition? I've heard of market 'efficiency' defined this way.




    Did I use the word "efficiency"? We were talking about rationality. Efficiency in the markets is the result of rationality, or lack of it.

  • Reply 98 of 187
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Sumergo View Post

     

    It's hard to be too disappointed at this AAPL trend over five years - with ~ $20 added to the share price each year.

     

     

    Hang in there and hold, buy when it dips, sell when you need.  I'm not a market expert, but despite the so-called analysts who say they are, I feel Apple can continue to deliver an enhanced, usable, tech experience and surprise/over-perform for at least the next five years.

     

    Why?  Volume in China and elsewhere.  Continued Watch/iPhone integration in health and other "personal" app spaces.  Apple/IBM expansion in the mobile business arena.




    I never sell. At times, I buy some more. I'm not a trader anymore. I'm a long term investor. I only benefit from the drops. I tell people not to sell Apple on the drops, but to buy more, if they can.

  • Reply 99 of 187
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    melgross wrote: »

    Can you prove that? It's theory that buybacks raise the stock price. I understand what a buyback does to equity per share. But, there is no single bit of solid evidence that it brings the price up permanently. I've seen many buybacks since I began investing back when I was a kid in 1963. None have ever reliably brought that price up, and had it stay there. It's a great deal of money that could otherwise be used to enhance the business.

    Personally, I think Apple tends to fluctuate largely based on sentiment. There is little that can be rationally ascribed to their stock price beyond the fact that some people love 'em and some hate "em.
  • Reply 100 of 187
    sumergosumergo Posts: 215member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post

     



    I never sell. At times, I buy some more. I'm not a trader anymore. I'm a long term investor. I only benefit from the drops. I tell people not to sell Apple on the drops, but to buy more, if they can.




    I agree with your general investment strategy,  but sometimes it's prudent to realize some of your "winnings" and turn hypothetical money into real money.  AAPL should continue to be a good bet for the next few years, but after 2020, when climate change starts to really bite . . .

     

    OK - that's another forum/thread ;-) 

Sign In or Register to comment.