They've said lots of things over time, and some of them turned out to not be true. AppleTV is on time, Leopard is on time, iPod won't have video. It seems as if they said they would never make a phone.
Yes. But some things are simply obvious, even though it seems some people don't see it.
Agreed. Headline stipulates Apple has been seen offloading new MBP's and goes on to provide no evidence whatsoever to back up this claim, not even some idea of who it was that made the claim, worker at Moscone Center / person passing by...
Might as well be be another yarn spun by that "analyst" Warn Shu
I seen a lot of stocks split and then turn around in a month or two and gain 20 percent, in a year or two is back up to the price it was and split again. I am not sure what it is but people seem to think that if it is low (because of the split), they just think it is underpriced and buy more.
exactly. what most don't understand is that the stock is bought by three groups. day traders, retail investors, and huge institutions
the retail investor has much more influence on the long term growth than day traders or institutional investors
I can not tell you how many times I have heard people come up to me and say I wish I had some aapl but it is too expensive.
it is not a matter of logical math but rather emotional perception. yes spliting it does nothing for the stock, but with a lower price point you will see more people buying it therefore increasing the price in the long term at a faster rate
I'm sorry, but those people are idiots because that makes no logical sense. I'd like to think that the typical investor is not an idiot.
Personally, I'd wait for a stock split. $100 for any tech stock is very risky. Especially when they are taking risks with products like the iPhone and AppleTV
Personally, I'd wait for a stock split. $100 for any tech stock is very risky. Especially when they are taking risks with products like the iPhone and AppleTV
There's a lot more to it than just the price per share than that. If that's your only measure of risk/reward, then you are doing yourself a disservice.
Personally, I'd wait for a stock split. $100 for any tech stock is very risky. Especially when they are taking risks with products like the iPhone and AppleTV
$50 is just as risky, if it is a bad company.
It makes no difference what the price is, the risk is the same. What matters is that the stock is priced properly. That depends on how many shares are outstanding.
I'm sorry, but those people are idiots because that makes no logical sense. I'd like to think that the typical investor is not an idiot.
typical investors can be real idots. look at the tech bubble. why is amazon trading at p/e of 115 while apple is trading at p/e 35. amazon is growing but apple is a much healthier company. there is no real logic but just a perception of what is cheap and what will go up. regular people don't like buying stocks that are over 100 bucks.
aapl will go over $200 in the next 12 months. but if it splits in a couple of months it will be 60 a share and a year from now it will back to 100. that is how things play out when a company keeps growing at the rate that apple is. right now there are only 800 million shares outstanding, while intl has 5.8 billion shares. apple will split a few more times in the next 10 years.
Methinks you don't really understand what you're talking about. Are you an investor? Do you make money out of it? The rate at which a stock goes up and down has very little to do with its absolute price. Like melgross said, the price of a share is meaningless if you don't know how many shares there are in total.
Methinks you don't really understand what you're talking about. Are you an investor? Do you make money out of it? The rate at which a stock goes up and down has very little to do with its absolute price. Like melgross said, the price of a share is meaningless if you don't know how many shares there are in total.
what are you guys talking about? if each stock is worth 100 dollars for example, and let's say you have 200 shares you've invested 20 000 dollars into the company. if the company crashes and the stock goes down to 20 dollars a share, you've lost 16 000 dollars. therefore the price of the stock does matter.
what are you guys talking about? if each stock is worth 100 dollars for example, and let's say you have 200 shares you've invested 20 000 dollars into the company. if the company crashes and the stock goes down to 20 dollars a share, you've lost 16 000 dollars. therefore the price of the stock does matter.
Oh dear lord! In your example, the crash is an 80% reduction in value. It doesn't matter if to start with the shares each cost $10, $100, $1000, $pi, $e or any other $number; if the total value of your shares is $20,000 and the stock looses 80% of its value, you've lost $16,000.
what are you guys talking about? if each stock is worth 100 dollars for example, and let's say you have 200 shares you've invested 20 000 dollars into the company. if the company crashes and the stock goes down to 20 dollars a share, you've lost 16 000 dollars. therefore the price of the stock does matter.
It's partially like a gift to the shareholders. Ok, let's say I own 500 shares of AAPL and there is a 2 for 1 stock split. That means I now have 1000 shares. And let's say AAPL goes up $1/share tomorrow. Well that means by the end of the day tomorrow, I'm up $1000 in my position in AAPL when I would've only been up $500 with half the number of shares. Each share may be worth less initially after the split, but if it keeps doing as well as it has been, there would be a lot of happy investors, because each day they'd be making twice as much as they would have before the split. Do you see why shareholders of any stock that is doing really well might want this to happen? On the other hand, your reverse split scenario would have the opposite effect so I HIGHLY doubt any investor would be too happy about this. They'd probably sue Apple
My reverse split was indeed a joke... but companies (not doing well) often do it as an attempt to avoid de-listing but thankfully not something Apple has to deal with.
As for a forward split being a gift? Something is wrong with your example:
- I own 500 shares of AAPL
- there is a 2 for 1 stock split
- I now have 1000 shares
- let's say AAPL goes up $1/share tomorrow
- I'm up $1000 in my position in AAPL where I would have been up only $500 before
Here's the flaw in your example:
"- let's say AAPL goes up $1/share tomorrow "
Where did ONE DOLLAR come from and who's to say that had the stock NOT split the share price might have rose TWO FIFTY (instead of $1)...
Remember it's the stocks percentage of VALUE thats important...
$100 * .025 = $2.50 Dollar amount change or a 2.5% rise in price
$50 * .025 = $1.25 Dollar amount change or a 2.5% rise in price
50 * 2.50 = $125 (up)
100 * 1.25 = $125 (up)
Listen to stock reports and you'll notice that the PERCENT rise (or loss) is usually the focused on number (and NOT the dollar value rise). After all, a report declaring Berkshire Hathaway was down $75.00 in early trading could seem TRAGIC but when you look at the share price and realize that the share price is $110,000 (or there about) it's no big deal.
When traders buy/sell they *should be* basing their decision on the percent the share price increased/decreased and not the actual dollar value.
So, you guys all believe that the MacBook Pro is about to receive an update, then?
Absolutely. It's an inevitability. Just look how close the MacBook and the MacBook Pro are now. The higher-end MB is just about (or is) as good as the 15" MBP. There has to be an update soon, to create the gap between the to to clearly differentiate the "Pro" machine from the 'consumer' machine. It's coming, and at this point, it's gotta be coming at WWDC; I see no reason for them to release it this close to it.
If you check the apple's website on the black WWDC banner it says they are going to release a beta. Also I herd from 'someone' that leopard still needs some work...
Comments
They've said lots of things over time, and some of them turned out to not be true. AppleTV is on time, Leopard is on time, iPod won't have video. It seems as if they said they would never make a phone.
Yes. But some things are simply obvious, even though it seems some people don't see it.
But, when it all comes down to it. . . who really KNOWS?
The SHADOW knows!
Oh, wait. He's dead.
~pesky title on front page..~ misleading.
Agreed. Headline stipulates Apple has been seen offloading new MBP's and goes on to provide no evidence whatsoever to back up this claim, not even some idea of who it was that made the claim, worker at Moscone Center / person passing by...
Might as well be be another yarn spun by that "analyst" Warn Shu
I seen a lot of stocks split and then turn around in a month or two and gain 20 percent, in a year or two is back up to the price it was and split again. I am not sure what it is but people seem to think that if it is low (because of the split), they just think it is underpriced and buy more.
exactly. what most don't understand is that the stock is bought by three groups. day traders, retail investors, and huge institutions
the retail investor has much more influence on the long term growth than day traders or institutional investors
I can not tell you how many times I have heard people come up to me and say I wish I had some aapl but it is too expensive.
it is not a matter of logical math but rather emotional perception. yes spliting it does nothing for the stock, but with a lower price point you will see more people buying it therefore increasing the price in the long term at a faster rate
this stock will split at 120.
I can not tell you how many times I have heard people come up to me and say I wish I had some aapl but it is too expensive.
I'm sorry, but those people are idiots because that makes no logical sense. I'd like to think that the typical investor is not an idiot.
I'm sorry, but those people are idiots because that makes no logical sense. I'd like to think that the typical investor is not an idiot.
Personally, I'd wait for a stock split. $100 for any tech stock is very risky. Especially when they are taking risks with products like the iPhone and AppleTV
$100 for any tech stock is very risky
Personally, I'd wait for a stock split. $100 for any tech stock is very risky. Especially when they are taking risks with products like the iPhone and AppleTV
There's a lot more to it than just the price per share than that. If that's your only measure of risk/reward, then you are doing yourself a disservice.
Personally, I'd wait for a stock split. $100 for any tech stock is very risky. Especially when they are taking risks with products like the iPhone and AppleTV
$50 is just as risky, if it is a bad company.
It makes no difference what the price is, the risk is the same. What matters is that the stock is priced properly. That depends on how many shares are outstanding.
I'm sorry, but those people are idiots because that makes no logical sense. I'd like to think that the typical investor is not an idiot.
typical investors can be real idots. look at the tech bubble. why is amazon trading at p/e of 115 while apple is trading at p/e 35. amazon is growing but apple is a much healthier company. there is no real logic but just a perception of what is cheap and what will go up. regular people don't like buying stocks that are over 100 bucks.
aapl will go over $200 in the next 12 months. but if it splits in a couple of months it will be 60 a share and a year from now it will back to 100. that is how things play out when a company keeps growing at the rate that apple is. right now there are only 800 million shares outstanding, while intl has 5.8 billion shares. apple will split a few more times in the next 10 years.
They can go down as rapidly as they go up.
They can go down as rapidly as they go up.
Methinks you don't really understand what you're talking about. Are you an investor? Do you make money out of it? The rate at which a stock goes up and down has very little to do with its absolute price. Like melgross said, the price of a share is meaningless if you don't know how many shares there are in total.
Methinks you don't really understand what you're talking about. Are you an investor? Do you make money out of it? The rate at which a stock goes up and down has very little to do with its absolute price. Like melgross said, the price of a share is meaningless if you don't know how many shares there are in total.
what are you guys talking about? if each stock is worth 100 dollars for example, and let's say you have 200 shares you've invested 20 000 dollars into the company. if the company crashes and the stock goes down to 20 dollars a share, you've lost 16 000 dollars. therefore the price of the stock does matter.
what are you guys talking about? if each stock is worth 100 dollars for example, and let's say you have 200 shares you've invested 20 000 dollars into the company. if the company crashes and the stock goes down to 20 dollars a share, you've lost 16 000 dollars. therefore the price of the stock does matter.
Oh dear lord! In your example, the crash is an 80% reduction in value. It doesn't matter if to start with the shares each cost $10, $100, $1000, $pi, $e or any other $number; if the total value of your shares is $20,000 and the stock looses 80% of its value, you've lost $16,000.
what are you guys talking about? if each stock is worth 100 dollars for example, and let's say you have 200 shares you've invested 20 000 dollars into the company. if the company crashes and the stock goes down to 20 dollars a share, you've lost 16 000 dollars. therefore the price of the stock does matter.
That's not what we're saying.
Of course the price of a share matters to YOU.
It's partially like a gift to the shareholders. Ok, let's say I own 500 shares of AAPL and there is a 2 for 1 stock split. That means I now have 1000 shares. And let's say AAPL goes up $1/share tomorrow. Well that means by the end of the day tomorrow, I'm up $1000 in my position in AAPL when I would've only been up $500 with half the number of shares. Each share may be worth less initially after the split, but if it keeps doing as well as it has been, there would be a lot of happy investors, because each day they'd be making twice as much as they would have before the split. Do you see why shareholders of any stock that is doing really well might want this to happen? On the other hand, your reverse split scenario would have the opposite effect so I HIGHLY doubt any investor would be too happy about this. They'd probably sue Apple
My reverse split was indeed a joke... but companies (not doing well) often do it as an attempt to avoid de-listing but thankfully not something Apple has to deal with.
As for a forward split being a gift? Something is wrong with your example:
- I own 500 shares of AAPL
- there is a 2 for 1 stock split
- I now have 1000 shares
- let's say AAPL goes up $1/share tomorrow
- I'm up $1000 in my position in AAPL where I would have been up only $500 before
Here's the flaw in your example:
"- let's say AAPL goes up $1/share tomorrow "
Where did ONE DOLLAR come from and who's to say that had the stock NOT split the share price might have rose TWO FIFTY (instead of $1)...
Remember it's the stocks percentage of VALUE thats important...
$100 * .025 = $2.50 Dollar amount change or a 2.5% rise in price
$50 * .025 = $1.25 Dollar amount change or a 2.5% rise in price
50 * 2.50 = $125 (up)
100 * 1.25 = $125 (up)
Listen to stock reports and you'll notice that the PERCENT rise (or loss) is usually the focused on number (and NOT the dollar value rise). After all, a report declaring Berkshire Hathaway was down $75.00 in early trading could seem TRAGIC but when you look at the share price and realize that the share price is $110,000 (or there about) it's no big deal.
When traders buy/sell they *should be* basing their decision on the percent the share price increased/decreased and not the actual dollar value.
Dave
Hate to interrupt all this Hi Finance talk. My AAPL share is not for sale...
So, you guys all believe that the MacBook Pro is about to receive an update, then?
Absolutely. It's an inevitability. Just look how close the MacBook and the MacBook Pro are now. The higher-end MB is just about (or is) as good as the 15" MBP. There has to be an update soon, to create the gap between the to to clearly differentiate the "Pro" machine from the 'consumer' machine. It's coming, and at this point, it's gotta be coming at WWDC; I see no reason for them to release it this close to it.
If you check the apple's website on the black WWDC banner it says they are going to release a beta. Also I herd from 'someone' that leopard still needs some work...
I dunno this is just what i heard....