Apple share price closes at an all-time record high thanks to Vision Pro speculation

AppleInsider

The Apple Vision Pro announcement has helped push Apple's share price to an all-time high closing price.

AAPL closes at an all-time-high

Positive investor speculation has helped Apple's share price exceed a previous high set in 2022 when it crossed a $3 trillion market cap. Apple refreshed a few Macs and announced its usual operating system updates during WWDC a week prior, but all eyes are on Apple Vision Pro and the future of spatial computing.

According to a report from CNBC, Apple's stock closed at $183.79 per share on Monday -- a new record. The price rose by 1.5% throughout the trading day.

At $183.79 per share, Apple is valued at $2.89 trillion. The company is expected to cross $3 trillion again in 2023, likely due to Apple's position to "break through" where other headsets haven't.

Apple Vision Pro is an augmented reality device with the ability to shift to virtual reality on demand. The device differs from competitors' headsets due to its focus on work within the user's physical space.

Apple hasn't revealed everything about the new headset yet, so there is more to come before its 2024 release. Apple Vision Pro starts at $3,499.

Read on AppleInsider

FileMakerFeller

Up roughly $50 since the start of the year. Just incredible.

jeffharris

It's not the all-time all time high.
Before the 7x stock split back in 2014 it was something like $650 per share.
There was a 4x stock split in 2020. Shares were about $380.

They were real nice for me! 😃

coolfactor

jeffharris said:

It's not the all-time all time high.
Before the 7x stock split back in 2014 it was something like $650 per share.
There was a 4x stock split in 2020. Shares were about $380.

They were real nice for me! 😃

I'm not an investor, but my understanding is that a stock split does not change the value of a shareholder's earnings. You just get more of them.

When news articles report an "all time high", they are not talking about the dollar value of each individual share (ie. $100, $200, $300), but rather than value of a share to shareholders. 

If a share is valued at $700, and you own one of them, you'd have 1 x $700 = $700.

If a 7x stock split happens, you have 7 x $100 = $700.

Now if the share price goes up to $200 each, that $200 share is technically worth more than that original single $700 share, since you'd have 7 x $200 = $1400.

I could be completely wrong, but this is how I see share prices being valued. It's not about their individual dollar value, but the "worth" overall to shareholders.

Xed

jeffharris said:

It's not the all-time all time high.
Before the 7x stock split back in 2014 it was something like $650 per share.
There was a 4x stock split in 2020. Shares were about $380.

They were real nice for me! ߘ㦬t;/div>

Are you looking at the actual price per share, or the price of the stock after splits are adjusted? When people talk about the price of a share, unless otherwise stated that they're talking about a specific purchase price for a single share—like you may find with something like a Berkshire Hathaway share (NYSE: BRK.A) at $$509k—we always automatically adjust for for splits because those are already automatically adjusted in the history of the stock.

godofbiscuits

I'm going to assume that the stock price can be at all-time high, but the valuation of the company isn't at an all time high because of all the stock buy-backs?   

Alex_V

godofbiscuits said:

I'm going to assume that the stock price can be at all-time high, but the valuation of the company isn't at an all time high because of all the stock buy-backs?   

It’s the opposite. Buy-backs will reduce the number of shares without affecting the total value of the shares on the market. If ‘A’ is the share price; ‘B’ is the number of shares in the market; and ‘C’ is the total value of shares in the market. Market valuation is simply calculated as: A × B = C. Thus A = C / B, that is the share price is also the total value of shares divided by the number of shares. (Correct me if I’m wrong.) By buying shares and retiring them, the value of the remaining shares go up. Buy-backs are done to manipulate the stock price. It is Tim Cook’s way of rewarding those who have bought Apple stock. It does Apple little good as the last time the company issued shares was in the 1980s, but it rewards those, like Tim Cook, who have stock options. Tim Cook might also simply reward so-called ‘investors’ with dividends, although he is not obliged to — the rising stock price, which is a measure of company performance should be reward enough. Arguably, buy-backs are not a good sign, because they signal that the company doesn’t know what to do with its money, when the obvious options would be to increase your investments in R&D or reward your employees (in other words, distribute the proceeds of their success with those who brought it about — but that would be un-American). ;-) 

chutzpah

Alex_V said:

godofbiscuits said:

I'm going to assume that the stock price can be at all-time high, but the valuation of the company isn't at an all time high because of all the stock buy-backs?   

It’s the opposite. Buy-backs will reduce the number of shares without affecting the total value of the shares on the market. If ‘A’ is the share price; ‘B’ is the number of shares in the market; and ‘C’ is the total value of shares in the market. Market valuation is simply calculated as: A × B = C. Thus A = C / B, that is the share price is also the total value of shares divided by the number of shares. (Correct me if I’m wrong.) By buying shares and retiring them, the value of the remaining shares go up. Buy-backs are done to manipulate the stock price. It is Tim Cook’s way of rewarding those who have bought Apple stock. It does Apple little good as the last time the company issued shares was in the 1980s, but it rewards those, like Tim Cook, who have stock options. Tim Cook might also simply reward so-called ‘investors’ with dividends, although he is not obliged to — the rising stock price, which is a measure of company performance should be reward enough. Arguably, buy-backs are not a good sign, because they signal that the company doesn’t know what to do with its money, when the obvious options would be to increase your investments in R&D or reward your employees (in other words, distribute the proceeds of their success with those who brought it about — but that would be un-American). ;-) 

You're wrong.  Buying back shares does reduce market cap.  Of course it does, the company will be consuming its own cash reserves or taking on debt to finance the buy back.  If the company has fewer assets or higher liabilities then they are worse less, qed lower market cap.  Look at it this way, one way of seeing market cap is as the company's debt to its shareholders, so when a company buys back shares it is paying back some of that debt.

The share price might increase, which is great for the remaining shareholders, but it will not be a necessary consequence of the buy back. e.g. The buy back may give investors a positive view of the company's financial management, a confidence in the stock, and other soft influences, that can eventually lead to the share price rising but they aren't a direct relationship.

Alex_V

chutzpah said:

Alex_V said:

godofbiscuits said:

I'm going to assume that the stock price can be at all-time high, but the valuation of the company isn't at an all time high because of all the stock buy-backs?   

It’s the opposite. Buy-backs will reduce the number of shares without affecting the total value of the shares on the market. If ‘A’ is the share price; ‘B’ is the number of shares in the market; and ‘C’ is the total value of shares in the market. Market valuation is simply calculated as: A × B = C. Thus A = C / B, that is the share price is also the total value of shares divided by the number of shares. (Correct me if I’m wrong.) By buying shares and retiring them, the value of the remaining shares go up. Buy-backs are done to manipulate the stock price. It is Tim Cook’s way of rewarding those who have bought Apple stock. It does Apple little good as the last time the company issued shares was in the 1980s, but it rewards those, like Tim Cook, who have stock options. Tim Cook might also simply reward so-called ‘investors’ with dividends, although he is not obliged to — the rising stock price, which is a measure of company performance should be reward enough. Arguably, buy-backs are not a good sign, because they signal that the company doesn’t know what to do with its money, when the obvious options would be to increase your investments in R&D or reward your employees (in other words, distribute the proceeds of their success with those who brought it about — but that would be un-American). ;-) 

You're wrong.  Buying back shares does reduce market cap.  Of course it does, the company will be consuming its own cash reserves or taking on debt to finance the buy back.  If the company has fewer assets or higher liabilities then they are worse less, qed lower market cap.  Look at it this way, one way of seeing market cap is as the company's debt to its shareholders, so when a company buys back shares it is paying back some of that debt.

The share price might increase, which is great for the remaining shareholders, but it will not be a necessary consequence of the buy back. e.g. The buy back may give investors a positive view of the company's financial management, a confidence in the stock, and other soft influences, that can eventually lead to the share price rising but they aren't a direct relationship.

You may be right. But it’s the difference between results and consequences. Buying back and retiring shares results in the price of existing shares rising, just as a share split merely doubles the number of shares, halving the value per share. The overall market value of stock remains the same. In theory. But, in practice, those acts have consequences, if investors feel bullish about the decisions made by the Apple board, the stock price might go up, if not, the price might go down. 

chutzpah

Alex_V said:

chutzpah said:

Alex_V said:

godofbiscuits said:

I'm going to assume that the stock price can be at all-time high, but the valuation of the company isn't at an all time high because of all the stock buy-backs?   

It’s the opposite. Buy-backs will reduce the number of shares without affecting the total value of the shares on the market. If ‘A’ is the share price; ‘B’ is the number of shares in the market; and ‘C’ is the total value of shares in the market. Market valuation is simply calculated as: A × B = C. Thus A = C / B, that is the share price is also the total value of shares divided by the number of shares. (Correct me if I’m wrong.) By buying shares and retiring them, the value of the remaining shares go up. Buy-backs are done to manipulate the stock price. It is Tim Cook’s way of rewarding those who have bought Apple stock. It does Apple little good as the last time the company issued shares was in the 1980s, but it rewards those, like Tim Cook, who have stock options. Tim Cook might also simply reward so-called ‘investors’ with dividends, although he is not obliged to — the rising stock price, which is a measure of company performance should be reward enough. Arguably, buy-backs are not a good sign, because they signal that the company doesn’t know what to do with its money, when the obvious options would be to increase your investments in R&D or reward your employees (in other words, distribute the proceeds of their success with those who brought it about — but that would be un-American). ;-) 

You're wrong.  Buying back shares does reduce market cap.  Of course it does, the company will be consuming its own cash reserves or taking on debt to finance the buy back.  If the company has fewer assets or higher liabilities then they are worse less, qed lower market cap.  Look at it this way, one way of seeing market cap is as the company's debt to its shareholders, so when a company buys back shares it is paying back some of that debt.

The share price might increase, which is great for the remaining shareholders, but it will not be a necessary consequence of the buy back. e.g. The buy back may give investors a positive view of the company's financial management, a confidence in the stock, and other soft influences, that can eventually lead to the share price rising but they aren't a direct relationship.

You may be right. But it’s the difference between results and consequences. Buying back and retiring shares results in the price of existing shares rising, just as a share split merely doubles the number of shares, halving the value per share. The overall market value of stock remains the same. In theory. But, in practice, those acts have consequences, if investors feel bullish about the decisions made by the Apple board, the stock price might go up, if not, the price might go down. 

No no no no no.  Splitting shares literally makes one share into more shares, it is a direct, incontrovertible, mathematical result.  Retiring shares does not directly result in the price of shares rising.  The share price might rise, but it will be due to a wider mix of factors and is very much an indirect result based on stock market expectations.

Alex_V

chutzpah said:

Alex_V said:

You may be right. But it’s the difference between results and consequences. Buying back and retiring shares results in the price of existing shares rising, just as a share split merely doubles the number of shares, halving the value per share. The overall market value of stock remains the same. In theory. But, in practice, those acts have consequences, if investors feel bullish about the decisions made by the Apple board, the stock price might go up, if not, the price might go down. 

No no no no no.  Splitting shares literally makes one share into more shares, it is a direct, incontrovertible, mathematical result.  Retiring shares does not directly result in the price of shares rising.  The share price might rise, but it will be due to a wider mix of factors and is very much an indirect result based on stock market expectations.

Huh?? 

I used this as a guide, I was referring to companies buying their own shares on the open market:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share_repurchase
Over and out. 

chutzpah

Alex_V said:

chutzpah said:

Alex_V said:

You may be right. But it’s the difference between results and consequences. Buying back and retiring shares results in the price of existing shares rising, just as a share split merely doubles the number of shares, halving the value per share. The overall market value of stock remains the same. In theory. But, in practice, those acts have consequences, if investors feel bullish about the decisions made by the Apple board, the stock price might go up, if not, the price might go down. 

No no no no no.  Splitting shares literally makes one share into more shares, it is a direct, incontrovertible, mathematical result.  Retiring shares does not directly result in the price of shares rising.  The share price might rise, but it will be due to a wider mix of factors and is very much an indirect result based on stock market expectations.

Huh?? 

I used this as a guide, I was referring to companies buying their own shares on the open market:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share_repurchase
Over and out. 

Previous comment applies.  Share buybacks can lead to share prices rising, but it is by no means guaranteed.  Very, very different scenario from a split leading to a mathematical partitioning of the value of a share, which is absolutely guaranteed.

Alex_V

chutzpah said:

Alex_V said:

chutzpah said:

Alex_V said:

You may be right. But it’s the difference between results and consequences. Buying back and retiring shares results in the price of existing shares rising, just as a share split merely doubles the number of shares, halving the value per share. The overall market value of stock remains the same. In theory. But, in practice, those acts have consequences, if investors feel bullish about the decisions made by the Apple board, the stock price might go up, if not, the price might go down. 

No no no no no.  Splitting shares literally makes one share into more shares, it is a direct, incontrovertible, mathematical result.  Retiring shares does not directly result in the price of shares rising.  The share price might rise, but it will be due to a wider mix of factors and is very much an indirect result based on stock market expectations.

Huh?? 

I used this as a guide, I was referring to companies buying their own shares on the open market:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share_repurchase
Over and out. 

Previous comment applies.  Share buybacks can lead to share prices rising, but it is by no means guaranteed.  Very, very different scenario from a split leading to a mathematical partitioning of the value of a share, which is absolutely guaranteed.

I think you’re right. I stand corrected. You learn something every day. Unfortunately, I can’t delete my original comment as the time has expired. 

red oak

Alex_V said:

godofbiscuits said:

I'm going to assume that the stock price can be at all-time high, but the valuation of the company isn't at an all time high because of all the stock buy-backs?   

It’s the opposite. Buy-backs will reduce the number of shares without affecting the total value of the shares on the market. If ‘A’ is the share price; ‘B’ is the number of shares in the market; and ‘C’ is the total value of shares in the market. Market valuation is simply calculated as: A × B = C. Thus A = C / B, that is the share price is also the total value of shares divided by the number of shares. (Correct me if I’m wrong.) By buying shares and retiring them, the value of the remaining shares go up. Buy-backs are done to manipulate the stock price. It is Tim Cook’s way of rewarding those who have bought Apple stock. It does Apple little good as the last time the company issued shares was in the 1980s, but it rewards those, like Tim Cook, who have stock options. Tim Cook might also simply reward so-called ‘investors’ with dividends, although he is not obliged to — the rising stock price, which is a measure of company performance should be reward enough. Arguably, buy-backs are not a good sign, because they signal that the company doesn’t know what to do with its money, when the obvious options would be to increase your investments in R&D or reward your employees (in other words, distribute the proceeds of their success with those who brought it about — but that would be un-American). ;-) 

Wrong.  On all points 

Wesley Hilliard

JP234 said:

 "Apple Inc. market capitalization reaches all-time high," or" Price of all Apple shares combined closes at all-time record high."

No, this is wrong. The headline is correct. Market capitalization is below $3 trillion. Apple has previously exceeded $3 trillion. The share price is at an all time high, because it has never been higher than this price accounting for splits.

Market cap is just the number of shares multiplied by the share price. The number of shares has decreased significantly over the past few years due to buybacks. Other market effects are in play, but this is the primary reason the share price can be at a record high without being at a record high market cap.

danox

coolfactor said:

jeffharris said:

It's not the all-time all time high.
Before the 7x stock split back in 2014 it was something like $650 per share.
There was a 4x stock split in 2020. Shares were about $380.

They were real nice for me! ߘ㦬t;/div>

I'm not an investor, but my understanding is that a stock split does not change the value of a shareholder's earnings. You just get more of them.

When news articles report an "all time high", they are not talking about the dollar value of each individual share (ie. $100, $200, $300), but rather than value of a share to shareholders. 

If a share is valued at $700, and you own one of them, you'd have 1 x $700 = $700.

If a 7x stock split happens, you have 7 x $100 = $700.

Now if the share price goes up to $200 each, that $200 share is technically worth more than that original single $700 share, since you'd have 7 x $200 = $1400.

I could be completely wrong, but this is how I see share prices being valued. It's not about their individual dollar value, but the "worth" overall to shareholders.

On paper, you’re not wrong, but if you had invested $3500, the price of an Apple Vision Pro today, in 2005 right after Apple’s 2 to 1 split, you would have bought 78.65 Apple shares if you had stayed long through the 7 to 1 split and the 4 to 1 split, not counting reinvesting dividends back into the amount you have, your total portfolio today would be. 2002.2 Apple shares and at today’s market price that would be approximately $400,800.40 dollars at today’s market value.

If you invest in a good blue chip company and you just stay constant over the years like Buffett, it can add up over time.

The moral of the story is if you are not investing in Apple, Monster Drink, or some of the other blue-chip company or companies and you are under the age of 40. You need to hit yourself over the head three times.

Stock, splits and dividends are two of the best things that can happen to a long retail investor.

I am not a fan of stock buybacks but management across all companies good and bad love them, I would rather have the dividends in my pocket irregardless of the taxes, but that is not how the modern MBA’s, management, and accountants see it, note it used to be illegal for a company to buyback it’s own shares and I think it should be illegal again.

Alex_V

red oak said:

Alex_V said:

godofbiscuits said:

I'm going to assume that the stock price can be at all-time high, but the valuation of the company isn't at an all time high because of all the stock buy-backs?   

It’s the opposite. Buy-backs will reduce the number of shares without affecting the total value of the shares on the market. If ‘A’ is the share price; ‘B’ is the number of shares in the market; and ‘C’ is the total value of shares in the market. Market valuation is simply calculated as: A × B = C. Thus A = C / B, that is the share price is also the total value of shares divided by the number of shares. (Correct me if I’m wrong.) By buying shares and retiring them, the value of the remaining shares go up. Buy-backs are done to manipulate the stock price. It is Tim Cook’s way of rewarding those who have bought Apple stock. It does Apple little good as the last time the company issued shares was in the 1980s, but it rewards those, like Tim Cook, who have stock options. Tim Cook might also simply reward so-called ‘investors’ with dividends, although he is not obliged to — the rising stock price, which is a measure of company performance should be reward enough. Arguably, buy-backs are not a good sign, because they signal that the company doesn’t know what to do with its money, when the obvious options would be to increase your investments in R&D or reward your employees (in other words, distribute the proceeds of their success with those who brought it about — but that would be un-American). ;-) 

Wrong.  On all points 

Feel free to elaborate. 

radarthekat

danox said:

coolfactor said:

jeffharris said:

It's not the all-time all time high.
Before the 7x stock split back in 2014 it was something like $650 per share.
There was a 4x stock split in 2020. Shares were about $380.

They were real nice for me! ߘ㦬t;/div>

I'm not an investor, but my understanding is that a stock split does not change the value of a shareholder's earnings. You just get more of them.

When news articles report an "all time high", they are not talking about the dollar value of each individual share (ie. $100, $200, $300), but rather than value of a share to shareholders. 

If a share is valued at $700, and you own one of them, you'd have 1 x $700 = $700.

If a 7x stock split happens, you have 7 x $100 = $700.

Now if the share price goes up to $200 each, that $200 share is technically worth more than that original single $700 share, since you'd have 7 x $200 = $1400.

I could be completely wrong, but this is how I see share prices being valued. It's not about their individual dollar value, but the "worth" overall to shareholders.

On paper, you’re not wrong, but if you had invested $3500, the price of an Apple Vision Pro today, in 2005 right after Apple’s 2 to 1 split, you would have bought 78.65 Apple shares if you had stayed long through the 7 to 1 split and the 4 to 1 split, not counting reinvesting dividends back into the amount you have, your total portfolio today would be. 2002.2 Apple shares and at today’s market price that would be approximately $400,800.40 dollars at today’s market value.

If you invest in a good blue chip company and you just stay constant over the years like Buffett, it can add up over time.

The moral of the story is if you are not investing in Apple, Monster Drink, or some of the other blue-chip company or companies and you are under the age of 40. You need to hit yourself over the head three times.

Stock, splits and dividends are two of the best things that can happen to a long retail investor.

I am not a fan of stock buybacks but management across all companies good and bad love them, I would rather have the dividends in my pocket irregardless of the taxes, but that is not how the modern MBA’s, management, and accountants see it, note it used to be illegal for a company to buyback it’s own shares and I think it should be illegal again.

Stock buybacks are a tax efficient means of moving cash off the balance sheet.  You don’t want a lot of cash sitting unused on a company’s balance sheet because cash gets valued at 1x versus a company’s operations being value at some higher multiple, in Apple’s case currently at about 31x. 

This makes the shares more attractive to those looking to invest.  Each dollar invested buys more of the productive assets and less of the static cash asset.  And this is the point missed by most who suggest buybacks are mere manipulation.

And, of course, share buybacks also increase the existing shareholders’ percentage ownership.  I’ll trade my ownership stake in a pile of 1x-valued static cash any day for more of Apple’s 31x-valued productive operations.  Thank you, sir.  Please do more of that. 

Cesar Battistini Maziero

I don’t have money for a MacBook Air, because they are too expensive in Brazil.

I already started saving money, I will travel to the United States and I will buy one these.

That is the most futuristic thing I have ever seen.

geekmee

I think Vision Pro has disrupted the disrupters!

davidw

jeffharris said:

It's not the all-time all time high.
Before the 7x stock split back in 2014 it was something like $650 per share.
There was a 4x stock split in 2020. Shares were about $380.

They were real nice for me! ߘ㦬t;/div>

The easy way to visualize why AAPL is at it all time high is like this.

It doesn't matter when you buy 1 share of AAPL, that 1 share of AAPL is worth more now, than any other time since Apple IPOed. Here's why and how.

I will go back to 8/31/2020, the day AAPL split 4:1. Say that you had bought 1 share of AAPL on 8/30 (before the split). it would had cost you $504. Now lets say that you also bought 1 share of AAPL on 9/1 (after the split). That 1 share would had cost you $126.  Today you would have 5 shares of AAPL worth $183.79 each, when accounting for the split of the share you purchased before the 8/31/2020. 

That one share of AAPL that you bought for $126, after the split, has never been worth more than $183.79. (Using only closing price.) But the 1 share of AAPL that you paid $504 for before the split, is now 4 shares of AAPL and is worth $735  (4 x $183.79). And it's also true that at no other time since you purchased it, has that 1 share of AAPL (that you paid $504 for), ever been worth more than $735. You can do this all the back to when Apple IPOed and this will always be true, providing you account for all the splits since the purchase till now. 

1 share of AAPL that I paid $19 for in 1998 when Jobs returned, is now 112 shares of AAPL after all the splits (2 x 2 x 7 x 4) at $183.  If you correctly apply the splits, that 1 share of AAPL that i paid $19 for, has never been worth more than today. When AAPL was at $504 on 8/30/2020 (before the 4:1 split), that 1 share was only 28 shares of AAPL (2 x 2 x 7 splits) . It's worth $20,500 now (112 X $183)  vs $14,112 when AAPL was at $504 (28 X $504).  

See how easy the was.