Apple hits $1 trillion market cap, the first US company ever to hit milestone [u]

123457

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 146
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 18,909member
    Soli said:
    gatorguy said:
    blah64 said:
    melgross said:
    JWSC said:
    melgross said:
    in all of this, the buyback monkeys say that it would have been worse without the buybacks, but they can’t prove it.
    The financial logic behind stock buybacks is simple math.  By definition, fewer outstanding shares means that earning per share goes up, which should mean the value of each share increases.

    It may be the case that companies that focus too much of their managerial energy on buybacks lose focus on their products, services and customers, which would diminish the overall value of the company.  I will posit that many buybacks in the past have been done for the wrong reasons by company managers who lost focus of their core business.  But the mathematical logic of buybacks is hard to refute.  Warren Buffet recently stated that he would do buybacks under the right circumstances.

    If it begins to appear that Tim Cook and company are focusing too much time and talent on buybacks to the detriment of new product development, then we ought to be concerned.  But what Apple has been doing with their stock is backed up by sound financial logic.
    Again, there’s no evidence for the efficacy of buybacks. Apple started this mostly because an investor, we all know who he is, pt]retty much forced them to, and then sold his investment anyway.


    That said, if Apple's management is doing this for the right reasons - as the best place they can park this many $Billions as an investment because they feel positive about the direction and potential of the company overall - then it's still a good thing, both for Apple and for investors.  Apple essentially gets the benefit of their own stock appreciation, as do investors...
      But it makes no sense to carry something on the order of 30% of your market cap in cash, especially for a company the size of Apple, and the buybacks have been an awesome investment of that cash.

    I wouldn't define it as an Apple investment since there's zero residual value on the books when it's done. The stock is retired. Gone. Burned. 
    1) An investment can defined as achieving a material result, but it doesn't have to be directly or immediately. This is why stock splits are done even though the value of the company isn't directly or immediately affected by the split.

    2) As I recall, they're not retiring all of it. I don't know the percentage, but a portion of it does go towards employee stock options.
    I don't recall anything about Apple keeping some and putting it into treasury stock. To the best of my knowledge they are not, and I cannot find any reference to it either in a quick search. Perhaps you have something? 

    As for expanding the definition of an investment into simply a helpful result that wouldn't apply to discussion of a corporation's assets would it, which is presumably what the OP thought was being done with the stock buybacks, retained for a later sale. Investments in a business sense are more strictly understood than the general definition might be.
    edited August 4
  • Reply 122 of 146
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 30,645member
    blah64 said:
    melgross said:
    JWSC said:
    melgross said:
    in all of this, the buyback monkeys say that it would have been worse without the buybacks, but they can’t prove it.
    The financial logic behind stock buybacks is simple math.  By definition, fewer outstanding shares means that earning per share goes up, which should mean the value of each share increases.

    It may be the case that companies that focus too much of their managerial energy on buybacks lose focus on their products, services and customers, which would diminish the overall value of the company.  I will posit that many buybacks in the past have been done for the wrong reasons by company managers who lost focus of their core business.  But the mathematical logic of buybacks is hard to refute.  Warren Buffet recently stated that he would do buybacks under the right circumstances.

    If it begins to appear that Tim Cook and company are focusing too much time and talent on buybacks to the detriment of new product development, then we ought to be concerned.  But what Apple has been doing with their stock is backed up by sound financial logic.
    Again, there’s no evidence for the efficacy of buybacks. Apple started this mostly because an investor, we all know who he is, pt]retty much forced them to, and then sold his investment anyway.
    Sure, he-who-must-not-be-named (are we not naming him here? fine by me) made a lot of noise and helped influence Apple to start their buybacks, but that influence is long gone and Apple is still strongly on board with the general plan.

    We may be down to splitting hairs, because I agree with your statement "there's no evidence for the efficacy of buybacks" from a technical standpoint.  It's just shifting money and share price around.  That shifting doesn't make the shares more valuable or attractive.

    That said, if Apple's management is doing this for the right reasons - as the best place they can park this many $Billions as an investment because they feel positive about the direction and potential of the company overall - then it's still a good thing, both for Apple and for investors.  Apple essentially gets the benefit of their own stock appreciation, as do investors.

    If AAPL or the market in general goes into a long slide downward and Apple's management continues on the buyback plan then I'll join the "this is a bad idea" crowd.  But they've clearly benefited Apple over the past few years.  Think about the entry prices on all the previous buybacks compared with the share price today!

    I think about it like this: buybacks aren't the engine, they don't drive share price up.  And I think this is what you're saying and I completely agree.  But if the train is moving in the right direction, buybacks are like hitching onto the train and taking advantage of it. 

    Besides, at some point it's ridiculous to keep hoards of cash.  I don't actually like the "net cash neutral" goal, I think they should keep a war chest around, maybe 5% of market cap.  But it makes no sense to carry something on the order of 30% of your market cap in cash, especially for a company the size of Apple, and the buybacks have been an awesome investment of that cash.

    The problem is, and this is why all of us who don’t believe in the concept of share buybacks feel this way, not just because they don’t really work the way we’re told they do, but because the company is NOT parking money with this. They are throwing it into a trash can, and setting it on fire. That’s because Apple doesn’t retain those shares, they retire almost all of them. That means the money they use for the buybacks is thrown away, never to be seen again. The small amount of shares they may retain is for executive compensation etc. 

    i would rather they spent that money on R&D, production, marketing and such. So instead of throwing $50 billion a year away, they could actually use that money to advance the company’s purposes. And they could give shareholders a bigger dividend.
    palomine
  • Reply 123 of 146
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 30,645member

    Soli said:
    gatorguy said:
    blah64 said:
    melgross said:
    JWSC said:
    melgross said:
    in all of this, the buyback monkeys say that it would have been worse without the buybacks, but they can’t prove it.
    The financial logic behind stock buybacks is simple math.  By definition, fewer outstanding shares means that earning per share goes up, which should mean the value of each share increases.

    It may be the case that companies that focus too much of their managerial energy on buybacks lose focus on their products, services and customers, which would diminish the overall value of the company.  I will posit that many buybacks in the past have been done for the wrong reasons by company managers who lost focus of their core business.  But the mathematical logic of buybacks is hard to refute.  Warren Buffet recently stated that he would do buybacks under the right circumstances.

    If it begins to appear that Tim Cook and company are focusing too much time and talent on buybacks to the detriment of new product development, then we ought to be concerned.  But what Apple has been doing with their stock is backed up by sound financial logic.
    Again, there’s no evidence for the efficacy of buybacks. Apple started this mostly because an investor, we all know who he is, pt]retty much forced them to, and then sold his investment anyway.


    That said, if Apple's management is doing this for the right reasons - as the best place they can park this many $Billions as an investment because they feel positive about the direction and potential of the company overall - then it's still a good thing, both for Apple and for investors.  Apple essentially gets the benefit of their own stock appreciation, as do investors...
      But it makes no sense to carry something on the order of 30% of your market cap in cash, especially for a company the size of Apple, and the buybacks have been an awesome investment of that cash.

    I wouldn't define it as an Apple investment since there's zero residual value on the books when it's done. The stock is retired. Gone. Burned. 
    1) An investment can defined as achieving a material result, but it doesn't have to be directly or immediately. This is why stock splits are done even though the value of the company isn't directly or immediately affected by the split.

    2) As I recall, they're not retiring all of it. I don't know the percentage, but a portion of it does go towards employee stock options.
    A good 99% most of the time. Stock splits also have no value. It’s another myth. Look at the price of Amazon and Alphabet. No stock splits hasn’t hurt the share value from climbing.

    oh, and until now, they had to take on enormous debt to pay for those buybacks. It was up to, I think, about $133 billion!!! They just paid about $30 billion of it down, because of the tax situation, which, while it unnecessarily helps some large companies, doesn’t help most people.

    so what we see is even worse than what they tell us about buybacks. For every $10 billion in buybacks, Apple has added $10 billion in debt, which it has to pay back. So every $10 billion in buybacks actually has cost Apple $20 billion, plus the interest on the debt, minus the interest they were getting for the cash. And a lower rating from Moodys and other rating services.

    now, another supposed reason given for the buybacks is that with less shares outstanding, they have to pay less dividends, and so they can better finance higher dividends.

    BS!

    if they didn’t throw that money away in the first place, they would have plenty to finance higher dividends.
    edited August 5
  • Reply 124 of 146
    SoliSoli Posts: 7,847member
    melgross said:

    Soli said:
    gatorguy said:
    blah64 said:
    melgross said:
    JWSC said:
    melgross said:
    in all of this, the buyback monkeys say that it would have been worse without the buybacks, but they can’t prove it.
    The financial logic behind stock buybacks is simple math.  By definition, fewer outstanding shares means that earning per share goes up, which should mean the value of each share increases.

    It may be the case that companies that focus too much of their managerial energy on buybacks lose focus on their products, services and customers, which would diminish the overall value of the company.  I will posit that many buybacks in the past have been done for the wrong reasons by company managers who lost focus of their core business.  But the mathematical logic of buybacks is hard to refute.  Warren Buffet recently stated that he would do buybacks under the right circumstances.

    If it begins to appear that Tim Cook and company are focusing too much time and talent on buybacks to the detriment of new product development, then we ought to be concerned.  But what Apple has been doing with their stock is backed up by sound financial logic.
    Again, there’s no evidence for the efficacy of buybacks. Apple started this mostly because an investor, we all know who he is, pt]retty much forced them to, and then sold his investment anyway.


    That said, if Apple's management is doing this for the right reasons - as the best place they can park this many $Billions as an investment because they feel positive about the direction and potential of the company overall - then it's still a good thing, both for Apple and for investors.  Apple essentially gets the benefit of their own stock appreciation, as do investors...
      But it makes no sense to carry something on the order of 30% of your market cap in cash, especially for a company the size of Apple, and the buybacks have been an awesome investment of that cash.

    I wouldn't define it as an Apple investment since there's zero residual value on the books when it's done. The stock is retired. Gone. Burned. 
    1) An investment can defined as achieving a material result, but it doesn't have to be directly or immediately. This is why stock splits are done even though the value of the company isn't directly or immediately affected by the split.

    2) As I recall, they're not retiring all of it. I don't know the percentage, but a portion of it does go towards employee stock options.
    A good 99% most of the time. Stock splits also have no value. It’s another myth. Look at the price of Amazon and Alphabet. No stock splits hasn’t hurt the share value from climbing.
    To be clear, you believe that if Apple had NEVER once split their stock since going public on 12 December 1980 that they would still have reached a $1T valuation this past week? If my math is correct that would be $11,647.44 per share as of Friday's close.

    So, you don't see how someone who has $500, $5k, of even $10k to invest in a company may never invest in Apple if they're not keep on mutual funds? Then there's a certain psychological aspect to having bought a single share over having bought over 50.

    And Apple's had relatively few splits and is a relatively new company. If we look companies that are 100 years old we likely have adjust stock prices for companies that are so high that most don't earn that much in a lifetime to buy a single share.
    edited August 5
  • Reply 125 of 146
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 30,645member
    Soli said:
    melgross said:

    Soli said:
    gatorguy said:
    blah64 said:
    melgross said:
    JWSC said:
    melgross said:
    in all of this, the buyback monkeys say that it would have been worse without the buybacks, but they can’t prove it.
    The financial logic behind stock buybacks is simple math.  By definition, fewer outstanding shares means that earning per share goes up, which should mean the value of each share increases.

    It may be the case that companies that focus too much of their managerial energy on buybacks lose focus on their products, services and customers, which would diminish the overall value of the company.  I will posit that many buybacks in the past have been done for the wrong reasons by company managers who lost focus of their core business.  But the mathematical logic of buybacks is hard to refute.  Warren Buffet recently stated that he would do buybacks under the right circumstances.

    If it begins to appear that Tim Cook and company are focusing too much time and talent on buybacks to the detriment of new product development, then we ought to be concerned.  But what Apple has been doing with their stock is backed up by sound financial logic.
    Again, there’s no evidence for the efficacy of buybacks. Apple started this mostly because an investor, we all know who he is, pt]retty much forced them to, and then sold his investment anyway.


    That said, if Apple's management is doing this for the right reasons - as the best place they can park this many $Billions as an investment because they feel positive about the direction and potential of the company overall - then it's still a good thing, both for Apple and for investors.  Apple essentially gets the benefit of their own stock appreciation, as do investors...
      But it makes no sense to carry something on the order of 30% of your market cap in cash, especially for a company the size of Apple, and the buybacks have been an awesome investment of that cash.

    I wouldn't define it as an Apple investment since there's zero residual value on the books when it's done. The stock is retired. Gone. Burned. 
    1) An investment can defined as achieving a material result, but it doesn't have to be directly or immediately. This is why stock splits are done even though the value of the company isn't directly or immediately affected by the split.

    2) As I recall, they're not retiring all of it. I don't know the percentage, but a portion of it does go towards employee stock options.
    A good 99% most of the time. Stock splits also have no value. It’s another myth. Look at the price of Amazon and Alphabet. No stock splits hasn’t hurt the share value from climbing.
    To be clear, you believe that if Apple had NEVER once split their stock since going public on 12 December 1980 that they would still have reached a $1T valuation this past week?
    Let’s see, Amazon is at about $890 billion, and Alphabet is at about $840. What do you think?
  • Reply 126 of 146
    SoliSoli Posts: 7,847member
    melgross said:
    Soli said:
    melgross said:
    A good 99% most of the time. Stock splits also have no value. It’s another myth. Look at the price of Amazon and Alphabet. No stock splits hasn’t hurt the share value from climbing.
    To be clear, you believe that if Apple had NEVER once split their stock since going public on 12 December 1980 that they would still have reached a $1T valuation this past week?
    Let’s see, Amazon is at about $890 billion, and Alphabet is at about $840. What do you think?
    1) Apple made it to $1T before them which already deflates your odd soapbox argument that stock splits (and buybacks) serve zero purpose.

    2) The stock prices for AMZN and GOOGL are a lot closer to AAPL today than what AAPL would be without any splits. GOOGL's P/E is nice (I'd love to see AAPL in that range), but AMZN is just insane. I don't even think Bezos expected that to happen. I don't know who would invest in AMZN potential for a profitable future when they barely ever turn a profit on the few quarters they do—probably the same wacko investors still funneling money to MoviePass.

    3) If AMZN gets over $10k per share without any indication of a split then we can reexamine why Tim Cook and all of Apple's accounting teams are such idiots when it comes to finance.
  • Reply 127 of 146
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 2,468member
    danvm said:
    Apple is the first US company with $1T valuation, and second worldwide, behind PetroChina. 


    Get serious here. Petrochina is/was a joke. The stock runup that it had which put it briefly at $1T was a silly little bubble for a commodity company in a nascent Chinese exchange that was having trouble pricing its stocks in its early days. It is at ~25% of that value now, which is closer to its true price.

    The beauty is AAPL is still an undervalued company at this price. It will continue to grow from this level, (in that process, it surely will fall below that number as well, I.e., there will be volatility). It is the first legitimate trillion dollar company. Period. 
    Both are/were legitimate but ultimately of little interest to non-investors. Good for Apple but are things magically and radically different from two weeks ago? Not at all.

    Reason to celebrate, release a statement or two, then business as usual, which I think it is right now.




  • Reply 128 of 146
    SoliSoli Posts: 7,847member
    avon b7 said:
    danvm said:
    Apple is the first US company with $1T valuation, and second worldwide, behind PetroChina. 


    Get serious here. Petrochina is/was a joke. The stock runup that it had which put it briefly at $1T was a silly little bubble for a commodity company in a nascent Chinese exchange that was having trouble pricing its stocks in its early days. It is at ~25% of that value now, which is closer to its true price.

    The beauty is AAPL is still an undervalued company at this price. It will continue to grow from this level, (in that process, it surely will fall below that number as well, I.e., there will be volatility). It is the first legitimate trillion dollar company. Period. 
    Both are/were legitimate but ultimately of little interest to non-investors. Good for Apple but are things magically and radically different from two weeks ago? Not at all.

    Reason to celebrate, release a statement or two, then business as usual, which I think it is right now.
    That’s like claiming to be as fast as Usain Bolt was in the 100M, but you clocking your speed for only 2M and then multiplying by 50.
  • Reply 129 of 146
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 2,468member
    Soli said:
    avon b7 said:
    danvm said:
    Apple is the first US company with $1T valuation, and second worldwide, behind PetroChina. 


    Get serious here. Petrochina is/was a joke. The stock runup that it had which put it briefly at $1T was a silly little bubble for a commodity company in a nascent Chinese exchange that was having trouble pricing its stocks in its early days. It is at ~25% of that value now, which is closer to its true price.

    The beauty is AAPL is still an undervalued company at this price. It will continue to grow from this level, (in that process, it surely will fall below that number as well, I.e., there will be volatility). It is the first legitimate trillion dollar company. Period. 
    Both are/were legitimate but ultimately of little interest to non-investors. Good for Apple but are things magically and radically different from two weeks ago? Not at all.

    Reason to celebrate, release a statement or two, then business as usual, which I think it is right now.
    That’s like claiming to be as fast as Usain Bolt was in the 100M, but you clocking your speed for only 2M and then multiplying by 50.
    The markets are speculative. People here complain about that constantly.

    The market value hit a figure and that's where the story really ends. Legitimacy doesn't come into it. Or are we evaluating other factors that aren't the number itself?

    Some peaks are purely driven by market movements as are some troughs.

    Personally I hate it when TC rattles off the 'corporate values' line. As if the market even cared about that stuff. I understand why he says it but things like legitimacy don't come into it.

    We are talking about a number. Nothing else.

    Two weeks ago Apple was exactly the same company but sitting at a different number, no different to countless other companies (many probably over or under valued) but no less or more legitimate.


  • Reply 130 of 146
    SoliSoli Posts: 7,847member
    avon b7 said:
    Soli said:
    avon b7 said:
    danvm said:
    Apple is the first US company with $1T valuation, and second worldwide, behind PetroChina. 


    Get serious here. Petrochina is/was a joke. The stock runup that it had which put it briefly at $1T was a silly little bubble for a commodity company in a nascent Chinese exchange that was having trouble pricing its stocks in its early days. It is at ~25% of that value now, which is closer to its true price.

    The beauty is AAPL is still an undervalued company at this price. It will continue to grow from this level, (in that process, it surely will fall below that number as well, I.e., there will be volatility). It is the first legitimate trillion dollar company. Period. 
    Both are/were legitimate but ultimately of little interest to non-investors. Good for Apple but are things magically and radically different from two weeks ago? Not at all.

    Reason to celebrate, release a statement or two, then business as usual, which I think it is right now.
    That’s like claiming to be as fast as Usain Bolt was in the 100M, but you clocking your speed for only 2M and then multiplying by 50.
    The markets are speculative. People here complain about that constantly.

    The market value hit a figure and that's where the story really ends. Legitimacy doesn't come into it. Or are we evaluating other factors that aren't the number itself?

    Some peaks are purely driven by market movements as are some troughs.

    Personally I hate it when TC rattles off the 'corporate values' line. As if the market even cared about that stuff. I understand why he says it but things like legitimacy don't come into it.

    We are talking about a number. Nothing else.

    Two weeks ago Apple was exactly the same company but sitting at a different number, no different to countless other companies (many probably over or under valued) but no less or more legitimate.
    You're absolutely right. Milestones mean nothing in society. That's why I see people completing in the Iron Man triathlon on TV I scoff and say, "I know how to swim, ride a bike, and run, too."
  • Reply 131 of 146
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 2,468member
    Soli said:
    avon b7 said:
    Soli said:
    avon b7 said:
    danvm said:
    Apple is the first US company with $1T valuation, and second worldwide, behind PetroChina. 


    Get serious here. Petrochina is/was a joke. The stock runup that it had which put it briefly at $1T was a silly little bubble for a commodity company in a nascent Chinese exchange that was having trouble pricing its stocks in its early days. It is at ~25% of that value now, which is closer to its true price.

    The beauty is AAPL is still an undervalued company at this price. It will continue to grow from this level, (in that process, it surely will fall below that number as well, I.e., there will be volatility). It is the first legitimate trillion dollar company. Period. 
    Both are/were legitimate but ultimately of little interest to non-investors. Good for Apple but are things magically and radically different from two weeks ago? Not at all.

    Reason to celebrate, release a statement or two, then business as usual, which I think it is right now.
    That’s like claiming to be as fast as Usain Bolt was in the 100M, but you clocking your speed for only 2M and then multiplying by 50.
    The markets are speculative. People here complain about that constantly.

    The market value hit a figure and that's where the story really ends. Legitimacy doesn't come into it. Or are we evaluating other factors that aren't the number itself?

    Some peaks are purely driven by market movements as are some troughs.

    Personally I hate it when TC rattles off the 'corporate values' line. As if the market even cared about that stuff. I understand why he says it but things like legitimacy don't come into it.

    We are talking about a number. Nothing else.

    Two weeks ago Apple was exactly the same company but sitting at a different number, no different to countless other companies (many probably over or under valued) but no less or more legitimate.
    You're absolutely right. Milestones mean nothing in society. That's why I see people completing in the Iron Man triathlon on TV I scoff and say, "I know how to swim, ride a bike, and run, too."
    That's a poor comparison and completely misses the point.

    The OP wasn't referring to the milestone itself. He was saying the Apple number was more legitimate. I referenced the milestone (good for Apple).

    My view is that in this case all that matters is that the number was hit, not for how long, under which circumstances or if it was legitimate or not because, as numbers, both are legitimate. 

    It's a way of saying 'it doesn't count'. Of course it counts, speculation and all. That's what drives the markets!

    That fact it was short-lived and tanked from then on is irrelevant.
  • Reply 132 of 146
    JWSCJWSC Posts: 116member
    melgross 
    Again, there’s no evidence for the efficacy of buybacks. Apple started this mostly because 
    Saying it over and over again does make it true.
  • Reply 133 of 146
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 30,645member
    Soli said:
    melgross said:
    Soli said:
    melgross said:
    A good 99% most of the time. Stock splits also have no value. It’s another myth. Look at the price of Amazon and Alphabet. No stock splits hasn’t hurt the share value from climbing.
    To be clear, you believe that if Apple had NEVER once split their stock since going public on 12 December 1980 that they would still have reached a $1T valuation this past week?
    Let’s see, Amazon is at about $890 billion, and Alphabet is at about $840. What do you think?
    1) Apple made it to $1T before them which already deflates your odd soapbox argument that stock splits (and buybacks) serve zero purpose.

    2) The stock prices for AMZN and GOOGL are a lot closer to AAPL today than what AAPL would be without any splits. GOOGL's P/E is nice (I'd love to see AAPL in that range), but AMZN is just insane. I don't even think Bezos expected that to happen. I don't know who would invest in AMZN potential for a profitable future when they barely ever turn a profit on the few quarters they do—probably the same wacko investors still funneling money to MoviePass.

    3) If AMZN gets over $10k per share without any indication of a split then we can reexamine why Tim Cook and all of Apple's accounting teams are such idiots when it comes to finance.
    That first statement has nothing to do with it. I don’t even see how you can make that statement. Apple reached the number because they are a much bigger company, and make the worlds highest profits, and have the most cash, and cash flow. It has nothing to do with splits, or buybacks.

    well, your statement here about what Apple’s stock would be if there were no splits is incorrect. It would be almost $3,000. Look, I believe that amazon is way overpriced, and I’ve believed it for years. I bought Amazon below $100, and sold it at $244 because I just couldn’t stand it anymore. The price always looks as it’s going to crash. Profits aren’t an Amazon investment story. Continued high growth and industry domination is the story.

    it has nothing to do with being idiots. It’s just a different way of achieving the same goal. There is no one way to do it. That’s all I’m saying.
    edited August 6
  • Reply 134 of 146
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 30,645member
    avon b7 said:
    Soli said:
    avon b7 said:
    danvm said:
    Apple is the first US company with $1T valuation, and second worldwide, behind PetroChina. 


    Get serious here. Petrochina is/was a joke. The stock runup that it had which put it briefly at $1T was a silly little bubble for a commodity company in a nascent Chinese exchange that was having trouble pricing its stocks in its early days. It is at ~25% of that value now, which is closer to its true price.

    The beauty is AAPL is still an undervalued company at this price. It will continue to grow from this level, (in that process, it surely will fall below that number as well, I.e., there will be volatility). It is the first legitimate trillion dollar company. Period. 
    Both are/were legitimate but ultimately of little interest to non-investors. Good for Apple but are things magically and radically different from two weeks ago? Not at all.

    Reason to celebrate, release a statement or two, then business as usual, which I think it is right now.
    That’s like claiming to be as fast as Usain Bolt was in the 100M, but you clocking your speed for only 2M and then multiplying by 50.
    The markets are speculative. People here complain about that constantly.

    The market value hit a figure and that's where the story really ends. Legitimacy doesn't come into it. Or are we evaluating other factors that aren't the number itself?

    Some peaks are purely driven by market movements as are some troughs.

    Personally I hate it when TC rattles off the 'corporate values' line. As if the market even cared about that stuff. I understand why he says it but things like legitimacy don't come into it.

    We are talking about a number. Nothing else.

    Two weeks ago Apple was exactly the same company but sitting at a different number, no different to countless other companies (many probably over or under valued) but no less or more legitimate.


    What you’re saying isn’t entirely correct. That’s true for smaller, less valuable companies that use their stock when buying other companies. Of course, with Apple, much conventional thinking isn’t relevant.
  • Reply 135 of 146
    carnegiecarnegie Posts: 378member
    melgross said:
    Soli said:
    melgross said:
    Soli said:
    melgross said:
    A good 99% most of the time. Stock splits also have no value. It’s another myth. Look at the price of Amazon and Alphabet. No stock splits hasn’t hurt the share value from climbing.
    To be clear, you believe that if Apple had NEVER once split their stock since going public on 12 December 1980 that they would still have reached a $1T valuation this past week?
    Let’s see, Amazon is at about $890 billion, and Alphabet is at about $840. What do you think?
    1) Apple made it to $1T before them which already deflates your odd soapbox argument that stock splits (and buybacks) serve zero purpose.

    2) The stock prices for AMZN and GOOGL are a lot closer to AAPL today than what AAPL would be without any splits. GOOGL's P/E is nice (I'd love to see AAPL in that range), but AMZN is just insane. I don't even think Bezos expected that to happen. I don't know who would invest in AMZN potential for a profitable future when they barely ever turn a profit on the few quarters they do—probably the same wacko investors still funneling money to MoviePass.

    3) If AMZN gets over $10k per share without any indication of a split then we can reexamine why Tim Cook and all of Apple's accounting teams are such idiots when it comes to finance.
    That first statement has nothing to do with it. I don’t even see how you can make that statement. Apple reached the number because they are a much bigger company, and make the worlds highest profits, and have the most cash, and cash flow. It has nothing to do with splits, or buybacks.

    well, your statement here about what Apple’s stock would be if there were no splits is incorrect. It would be almost $3,000. Look, I believe that amazon is way overpriced, and I’ve believed it for years. I bought Amazon below $100, and sold it at $244 because I just couldn’t stand it anymore. The price always looks as it’s going to crash. Profits aren’t an Amazon investment story. Continued high growth and industry domination is the story.

    it has nothing to do with being idiots. It’s just a different way of achieving the same goal. There is no one way to do it. That’s all I’m saying.
    AAPL has split 56-for-1 since going public, 28-for-1 since 2000. I'd guess the former is where Soli is getting the "over $10k" from.
    edited August 6
  • Reply 136 of 146
    SoliSoli Posts: 7,847member
    melgross said:
    Soli said:
    melgross said:
    Soli said:
    melgross said:
    A good 99% most of the time. Stock splits also have no value. It’s another myth. Look at the price of Amazon and Alphabet. No stock splits hasn’t hurt the share value from climbing.
    To be clear, you believe that if Apple had NEVER once split their stock since going public on 12 December 1980 that they would still have reached a $1T valuation this past week?
    Let’s see, Amazon is at about $890 billion, and Alphabet is at about $840. What do you think?
    1) Apple made it to $1T before them which already deflates your odd soapbox argument that stock splits (and buybacks) serve zero purpose.

    2) The stock prices for AMZN and GOOGL are a lot closer to AAPL today than what AAPL would be without any splits. GOOGL's P/E is nice (I'd love to see AAPL in that range), but AMZN is just insane. I don't even think Bezos expected that to happen. I don't know who would invest in AMZN potential for a profitable future when they barely ever turn a profit on the few quarters they do—probably the same wacko investors still funneling money to MoviePass.

    3) If AMZN gets over $10k per share without any indication of a split then we can reexamine why Tim Cook and all of Apple's accounting teams are such idiots when it comes to finance.
    That first statement has nothing to do with it. I don’t even see how you can make that statement. Apple reached the number because they are a much bigger company, and make the worlds highest profits, and have the most cash, and cash flow. It has nothing to do with splits, or buybacks.

    well, your statement here about what Apple’s stock would be if there were no splits is incorrect. It would be almost $3,000. Look, I believe that amazon is way overpriced, and I’ve believed it for years. I bought Amazon below $100, and sold it at $244 because I just couldn’t stand it anymore. The price always looks as it’s going to crash. Profits aren’t an Amazon investment story. Continued high growth and industry domination is the story.

    it has nothing to do with being idiots. It’s just a different way of achieving the same goal. There is no one way to do it. That’s all I’m saying.
    According to this website Apple has done splits on 4 occasions. The last one was 7-to-1 and the other there were 2-to-1 so my math was:

    $207.99 × 7 × 2 × 2 × 2 = $11,647.44

    I content that I may have made a mistake in my maths so I didn't it again and I not only got the same result I'm not sure how you got $3,000 so I can't even work backwards from your calculations.

    Here I the site I used to get the data, but other sites had the same info:

    edited August 6
  • Reply 137 of 146
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 30,645member

    avon b7 said:
    Soli said:
    avon b7 said:
    Soli said:
    avon b7 said:
    danvm said:
    Apple is the first US company with $1T valuation, and second worldwide, behind PetroChina. 


    Get serious here. Petrochina is/was a joke. The stock runup that it had which put it briefly at $1T was a silly little bubble for a commodity company in a nascent Chinese exchange that was having trouble pricing its stocks in its early days. It is at ~25% of that value now, which is closer to its true price.

    The beauty is AAPL is still an undervalued company at this price. It will continue to grow from this level, (in that process, it surely will fall below that number as well, I.e., there will be volatility). It is the first legitimate trillion dollar company. Period. 
    Both are/were legitimate but ultimately of little interest to non-investors. Good for Apple but are things magically and radically different from two weeks ago? Not at all.

    Reason to celebrate, release a statement or two, then business as usual, which I think it is right now.
    That’s like claiming to be as fast as Usain Bolt was in the 100M, but you clocking your speed for only 2M and then multiplying by 50.
    The markets are speculative. People here complain about that constantly.

    The market value hit a figure and that's where the story really ends. Legitimacy doesn't come into it. Or are we evaluating other factors that aren't the number itself?

    Some peaks are purely driven by market movements as are some troughs.

    Personally I hate it when TC rattles off the 'corporate values' line. As if the market even cared about that stuff. I understand why he says it but things like legitimacy don't come into it.

    We are talking about a number. Nothing else.

    Two weeks ago Apple was exactly the same company but sitting at a different number, no different to countless other companies (many probably over or under valued) but no less or more legitimate.
    You're absolutely right. Milestones mean nothing in society. That's why I see people completing in the Iron Man triathlon on TV I scoff and say, "I know how to swim, ride a bike, and run, too."
    That's a poor comparison and completely misses the point.

    The OP wasn't referring to the milestone itself. He was saying the Apple number was more legitimate. I referenced the milestone (good for Apple).

    My view is that in this case all that matters is that the number was hit, not for how long, under which circumstances or if it was legitimate or not because, as numbers, both are legitimate. 

    It's a way of saying 'it doesn't count'. Of course it counts, speculation and all. That's what drives the markets!

    That fact it was short-lived and tanked from then on is irrelevant.
    It’s legitimate because the financial data is there to support it. In fact, Apple is terribly undervalued. The forward P/E is just 15.28, or was a day or so ago.
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 138 of 146
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 30,645member

    JWSC said:
    melgross 
    Again, there’s no evidence for the efficacy of buybacks. Apple started this mostly because 
    Saying it over and over again does make it true.
    Not really.
  • Reply 139 of 146
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 2,468member
    melgross said:

    avon b7 said:
    Soli said:
    avon b7 said:
    Soli said:
    avon b7 said:
    danvm said:
    Apple is the first US company with $1T valuation, and second worldwide, behind PetroChina. 


    Get serious here. Petrochina is/was a joke. The stock runup that it had which put it briefly at $1T was a silly little bubble for a commodity company in a nascent Chinese exchange that was having trouble pricing its stocks in its early days. It is at ~25% of that value now, which is closer to its true price.

    The beauty is AAPL is still an undervalued company at this price. It will continue to grow from this level, (in that process, it surely will fall below that number as well, I.e., there will be volatility). It is the first legitimate trillion dollar company. Period. 
    Both are/were legitimate but ultimately of little interest to non-investors. Good for Apple but are things magically and radically different from two weeks ago? Not at all.

    Reason to celebrate, release a statement or two, then business as usual, which I think it is right now.
    That’s like claiming to be as fast as Usain Bolt was in the 100M, but you clocking your speed for only 2M and then multiplying by 50.
    The markets are speculative. People here complain about that constantly.

    The market value hit a figure and that's where the story really ends. Legitimacy doesn't come into it. Or are we evaluating other factors that aren't the number itself?

    Some peaks are purely driven by market movements as are some troughs.

    Personally I hate it when TC rattles off the 'corporate values' line. As if the market even cared about that stuff. I understand why he says it but things like legitimacy don't come into it.

    We are talking about a number. Nothing else.

    Two weeks ago Apple was exactly the same company but sitting at a different number, no different to countless other companies (many probably over or under valued) but no less or more legitimate.
    You're absolutely right. Milestones mean nothing in society. That's why I see people completing in the Iron Man triathlon on TV I scoff and say, "I know how to swim, ride a bike, and run, too."
    That's a poor comparison and completely misses the point.

    The OP wasn't referring to the milestone itself. He was saying the Apple number was more legitimate. I referenced the milestone (good for Apple).

    My view is that in this case all that matters is that the number was hit, not for how long, under which circumstances or if it was legitimate or not because, as numbers, both are legitimate. 

    It's a way of saying 'it doesn't count'. Of course it counts, speculation and all. That's what drives the markets!

    That fact it was short-lived and tanked from then on is irrelevant.
    It’s legitimate because the financial data is there to support it. In fact, Apple is terribly undervalued. The forward P/E is just 15.28, or was a day or so ago.
    That was my point. Two weeks ago the numbers were also legitimate. But so are the values of every other company. Numbers are just numbers.

    Personally I think Apple is overvalued but I've thought that for years but the numbers haven't come down.

    The second Apple has a wobble, there will be a correction. I thought flat sales might be that wobble but it didn't turn out that way. 

    And now we have guidance for the next quarter that seems very optimistic so they are expecting to sell a lot of something. Then we have the Christmas quarter results. I suppose that means no wobble in the short term at least. LOL. 
  • Reply 140 of 146
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 30,645member
    Soli said:
    melgross said:
    Soli said:
    melgross said:
    Soli said:
    melgross said:
    A good 99% most of the time. Stock splits also have no value. It’s another myth. Look at the price of Amazon and Alphabet. No stock splits hasn’t hurt the share value from climbing.
    To be clear, you believe that if Apple had NEVER once split their stock since going public on 12 December 1980 that they would still have reached a $1T valuation this past week?
    Let’s see, Amazon is at about $890 billion, and Alphabet is at about $840. What do you think?
    1) Apple made it to $1T before them which already deflates your odd soapbox argument that stock splits (and buybacks) serve zero purpose.

    2) The stock prices for AMZN and GOOGL are a lot closer to AAPL today than what AAPL would be without any splits. GOOGL's P/E is nice (I'd love to see AAPL in that range), but AMZN is just insane. I don't even think Bezos expected that to happen. I don't know who would invest in AMZN potential for a profitable future when they barely ever turn a profit on the few quarters they do—probably the same wacko investors still funneling money to MoviePass.

    3) If AMZN gets over $10k per share without any indication of a split then we can reexamine why Tim Cook and all of Apple's accounting teams are such idiots when it comes to finance.
    That first statement has nothing to do with it. I don’t even see how you can make that statement. Apple reached the number because they are a much bigger company, and make the worlds highest profits, and have the most cash, and cash flow. It has nothing to do with splits, or buybacks.

    well, your statement here about what Apple’s stock would be if there were no splits is incorrect. It would be almost $3,000. Look, I believe that amazon is way overpriced, and I’ve believed it for years. I bought Amazon below $100, and sold it at $244 because I just couldn’t stand it anymore. The price always looks as it’s going to crash. Profits aren’t an Amazon investment story. Continued high growth and industry domination is the story.

    it has nothing to do with being idiots. It’s just a different way of achieving the same goal. There is no one way to do it. That’s all I’m saying.
    According to this website Apple has done splits on 4 occasions. The last one was 7-to-1 and the other there were 2-to-1 so my math was:

    $207.99 × 7 × 2 × 2 × 2 = $11,647.44

    I content that I may have made a mistake in my maths so I didn't it again and I not only got the same result I'm not sure how you got $3,000 so I can't even work backwards from your calculations.

    Here I the site I used to get the data, but other sites had the same info:

    Since Apple’s price collapsed, they’ve had two splits totaling 14 times the shares. I was using those. The stock price was way down at that point.
Sign In or Register to comment.