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

1234568»

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 146
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,289member
    melgross said:
    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.
    melgross said:
    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.
    What does a price fluctuation have to do with splits?

    To be clear, you’re claiming that one share of Apple stock the day of their IPO in 1980 would only be worth $3000 and not include four times the company split heir shares?
    edited August 6
  • Reply 142 of 146
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,064member
    avon b7 said:
    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. 
    If you think Apple is overvalued, then you shouldn’t be investing. Wobbles mean nothing in the long term. Too many investors don’t know what they’re doing, and that includes some big financial houses. A long time ago, I had more respect for analysts, but now, except for a couple, or so, I’ve lost that respect. A major reason for those wobbles is due to analysts who don’t understand much, but have to say something. Except for a few, the rest bundle in a herd, because if they do, when they’re wrong, they can point and say that almost everyone else thought the same thing.

    i didn’t read a single one who understood what happened with the 6 series and the 7 series after it. They all got it wrong, and that’s why Apple’s stock took that big dive. But it was just for a short while.

    meanwhile, to get back to Samsung, they’ve been selling fewer and fewer Galaxy S series phones year after year. While their sales of cheap phones go up, their sales of expensive models go down. Not a position they want to be in.
    edited August 6
  • Reply 143 of 146
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,064member
    Soli said:
    melgross said:
    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.
    melgross said:
    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.
    What does a price fluctuation have to do with splits?

    To be clear, you’re claiming that one share of Apple stock the day of their IPO in 1980 would only be worth $3000 and not include four times the company split heir shares?
    I explained what I was thinking.
  • Reply 144 of 146
    Amazon's market value consistently goes up by about $5 to 10B a day while Apple's market cap might go up about $5B a week if they're lucky.  Apple's days of having the highest market cap will soon be over and Amazon will quickly leave Apple in the dust in terms of market cap value.  By September, Amazon should be well past Apple in value which really blows my mind after all the big fuss they made over Apple reaching a $1T market cap after being close to $1T for a couple of years.  Compared to Amazon, Apple is doing almost nothing to increase its value.  Just projecting Amazon's growth, Amazon's market cap will be at $2T, while at the same time, Apple will only reach $1.2T.

    One almost has to wonder where all that money Apple is making is going to when Amazon is just steadily increasing in value day in and day out.  One might think it would be Apple steadily increasing in value as profits are constantly rolling in.  I have to admit I really don't seem to understand company value.  It just seems as though Apple would be making far more money each day than Amazon yet Amazon just keeps outperforming Apple by what seems to be a huge margin in terms of market cap gains.  Everything Amazon does seems to boost value immensely while with Apple, not so much.  It's just hard for me to figure.  As long as Wall Street continues to see more value in Amazon, then that's all that matters, whether I see it or not.
  • Reply 145 of 146
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 2,723member
    melgross said:
    avon b7 said:
    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. 
    If you think Apple is overvalued, then you shouldn’t be investing. Wobbles mean nothing in the long term. Too many investors don’t know what they’re doing, and that includes some big financial houses. A long time ago, I had more respect for analysts, but now, except for a couple, or so, I’ve lost that respect. A major reason for those wobbles is due to analysts who don’t understand much, but have to say something. Except for a few, the rest bundle in a herd, because if they do, when they’re wrong, they can point and say that almost everyone else thought the same thing.

    i didn’t read a single one who understood what happened with the 6 series and the 7 series after it. They all got it wrong, and that’s why Apple’s stock took that big dive. But it was just for a short while.

    meanwhile, to get back to Samsung, they’ve been selling fewer and fewer Galaxy S series phones year after year. While their sales of cheap phones go up, their sales of expensive models go down. Not a position they want to be in.
    No, I don't invest but I still consider Apple to be overvalued. I think the last time I seriously thought about investing in Apple, shares were about $13. What a miss. LOL.

    Samsung seems to have lost its smartphone focus of late even though I don't really follow what they release. They are playing catchup to the Chinese and there seems to be a lack of spark in marketing.
  • Reply 146 of 146
    SoliSoli Posts: 8,289member
    melgross said:
    Soli said:
    melgross said:
    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.
    melgross said:
    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.
    What does a price fluctuation have to do with splits?

    To be clear, you’re claiming that one share of Apple stock the day of their IPO in 1980 would only be worth $3000 and not include four times the company split heir shares?
    I explained what I was thinking.
    Did you? Clearly I'm not seeing your logic (or maths) if you're claiming that that a single share of Apple stock is only to be multiple 14x since it's IPO. I can only find my own comment where I showed the math and yet can't figure out why you keep saying my math is wrong.
Sign In or Register to comment.