So the author thinks he knows better than the many thousands of market participants, weighing all the pros and cons, who have made the price what it is. He is smarter than *all those thousands.*
Mate, there is a place for those who think they're smarter than everybody else: Washington, D.C.
Always right? No of course not. Always fairly? Yes. By definition.
I think AMZN would prove that theory wrong. Trading at a P/E of 100 with a poor outlook and a not so impressive Quarter. I don't see the logic behind assuming Amazon will grow so rapidly while Apple would stagnate, considering past performance more than squashes that, along with logical assumptions about the future, and both companies positions to maintain and accelerate growth.
I think some of the anti-Apple sentiment isn't directed at the products per se, but the way they run the company. From Steve Jobs' non-financial background to seemingly wise anti-divendend paying - they are not playing the game the way the Street expects. The Street seems to reward loss and short-term thinking more than sales, profits and long term strategy, at least in Apple's case.
The most possible reason why AAPL is undervalued is Someone big is pushing it down to collect cheap AAPL for the 1st result . Every TimE is cheating scared investors like this !!!!
Must be the Warrent Buffet in me but I am an old school investor. What happen with Apple over the years is all the growth has been taken out of the price. The current P/E went from 30 (which is bad) to 13 (which is good).
A P/E below 15 on a stock that is not in a decline makes it "safe". Now if you think the stock still has growth in it, that means the stock is at a bargain price.
The opposite of this are insane P/E stocks. Those stocks are extremely risky: look at NFLX (it went down like a bag of potatoes and now the P/E is better) or AMZN (that thing is going to crash at some point because its impossible to produce enough growth to match that p/e). The thing I would like is Apple to start paying dividends because why am I investing if something if I dont have part of the profits? fundamentals is key here.
I'm also very long AAPL and understand your frustration, Andy makes a solid case for being long AAPL.
I would suggest you look into shorting S&P 500 futures vs. your long AAPL position on a 20-40 delta.(i.e. for $1,000,000 long of AAPL you short $200,000- $400,000 of S&P futures).
As the market heads lower(and takes AAPL lower with it), you slowly buy back your short S&P 500. As the market heads higher, you slowly increase your short S&P delta.
The advantages of this strategy:
1. This is a good way to profit on the markets volatility.
2. You'll receive AAPL's outperformance of the S&P 500 over the next few years.
3. You get less emotional about the overall market
4. The short-term gains you receive in S&Ps, after re-adjusting your delta, are taxed at a 60/40 rate(short term/long term)
" the stock owner should not be too concerned with erratic fluctuations in stock prices, since in the short term, the stock market behaves like a voting machine, but in the long term it acts like a weighing machine"
Investing means contributing money to a company to help it grow and to benefit from that "investment" if the company does in fact grow.
None of the money that one invests is "contributed to a company to help it grow", unless you are buying stock directly from the company, such as in an IPO.
Your entire premise is incorrect, and so too are your conclusions.
It's unfortunate that no one but the British will properly parse the sarcasm pasted all over this article. Without a doubt the best AI article I've read in a long time.
Couldn't agree more. The poster that was complaining about financial news on an Apple fanboy site must not realize that many of us here own substantial amounts of Apple stock (in my case tens of thousands of dollars and I'm sure there are others with hundreds of thousands or more). I read this website as an indicator of the market segment and AAPL in particular. I already know most of the information in the article, but it is certainly an appropriate and good article for AI to publish.
None of the money that one "invests" in a stock goes to the company to "help it grow", unless you are buying stock directly from the company, such as in an IPO.
Your entire premise is incorrect, and so too are your conclusions.
You are only half right. Most companies, including AAPL have stock that is "on the shelf" and can be used by the company at any time to serve its own purposes. For example, shelf stock is often used to compensate management for doing a good job. And yes, the stock price will have a direct impact on how the recipients of this stock are motivated to stay with the company or wait out the period of time necessary for the stock to vest. If you subscribe to the theory that a company is only as good as the people running it, then the stock price is a critical aspect of building a company because it can be used to recruit and keep talented people.
It really isn't clear why AAPL is behaving the way it is. Personally I think the biggest problem with AAPL is its market cap. Large institutions can only have so much of single stock because of the principles of diversification. Take for example that the NASDAQ 100 index had to readjust its weighting of AAPL earlier this year to bring it down to 20%. Let me say that again "down to 20%". Do you see the problem? AAPL is making such a large percentage of the profits in the tech world that it is making it difficult for large institutions that invest in Tech to remain diversified. The number crunchers that tell the institutions when they are overweight a stock are forbidding their institutions from bulking up on more AAPL stock. It isn't that the managers don't want to buy it or don't see the value; rather it is the number crunchers that are telling the managers they can't buy it based on a rigid rule.
You can see more evidence of this scenario in the fact that AAPL has been used recently as a hedge against volatility. When the market plunges, investors are moving into AAPL short term as a hedge against risk because there is so much value in AAPL because of its good balance sheet.
i'm with frugality on this one. what are the holdings of the author? and why does the original article mention that they're a holder, when the article as posted in the comments says just the above? edit?
and how about the timing? what would this article have read like just five weeks ago, when aapl was trading in the mid 420s?
i'd like to see an in-depth analysis by someone who doesn't have money at stake in the game. cuz i'll guarantee you, zaky is in it for the money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Godzilla
That's BS. Having AAPL Shares doesn't discredit ones opinion, namely when they're stating facts and logistics. In fact, it backs up their claims as they're putting their money where their mouths are.
There's a difference between corrupt hyperbole and logical arguments for something you believe in/are invested in.
is he really putting his money where his mouth is? or is he trying to shore up his position? (and "logistics"? no.)
but no-one truly knows, do they? unless they have complete information on zaky's holdings, including dates, volumes, and prices. was he compensated for this piece? how much and by whom?
The future of a stock's performance is of course based on past performance, anyone who does any sort of prognostication in any field will confirm that - the stock market is a major proponent of that simple fact, and you can't simply reverse the whole underpinnings of the financials market to suit your opinion.
The iPhone 4S was anything but underwhelming and calling out wider delivery to other countries is rather silly. Would you have rather they continued to ignore or delay these other countries for the mere convenience of being same/same for comparison purposes to the iPhone 4 launch? That requires an absurd level of denial. If anything the market would (under other circumstances and with another company perhaps) have REWARDED such strategy.
The market as a whole is not trading in AAPL stock, there are specific reasons that the P/E ratio is being suppressed. Most other companies in the same category are underperforming and Apple is the only one that is overperforming. If you look at the primary stockholders for AAPL, you will see the actual reason behind the supression of the P/E ratio. The primary shareholders in Apple stock include FMR, Vanguard, State Street, T. Rowe Price, BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, Capital World Investors, Capital Research Global Investors, Invesco Ltd., JP Morgan Chase, Northern Trust Corp, Fidelity Contra, GFA, Powershares, and College Retirement Equities. 70% of Apple stock is held by these institutional shareholders. Understanding that, it is simple to look for them to attempt a "slingshot" effect by supressing Apple stock until the P/E ratio pressure is high enough to push it into rapid decompression effectively driving the valuation up to a significantly higher hold point. At which point they can begin doing the same thing all over again. These institutional investors are playing with Apple stock because it is the strongest performer in the market among the large cap set.
So the "great many people" you know that won't touch Apple stock are going to be very chagrined when these investors release the pressure on Apple stock and let it snap up to the next hold point.
I think you place too much emphasis on the ability of the large institutional investors to coordinate their efforts. These guys are as greedy as they come. There is no way they can work together to accomplish what you suggest because they could never trust one another. I agree that the price is being controlled by the large institutional investors, but I think the controlling factor is the need for diversification, not conspiracy theory.
I think the lesson here is that AAPL is a great long term investment for individual investors. It has the least risk and good growth potential of any stock out there.
Why does this stock booster article (by a company that owns stock) claim P/E of 8.25 on the front page when the actual P/E is 13? No self interest in making it look even more "undervalued"?
My guess is that 13 is trailing, based upon actual performance, while 8.25 is leading, based upon guesswork as to the future.
I'll be the cynic here. So who is this guy. He's the guy that if you go to his website and give him $150/mo. he will share this type of information with you. He will tell you on his website that they started back in 2008 and have stellar predictive results since. Three years and running. He is predicting that the stock of one of the most successful companies is going to go up! He is a graduate of UCLA law school and now a Wall Street guy. So now we are going to start listening again to lawyers and Wall street types? Will America ever learn.
is he really putting his money where his mouth is? or is he trying to shore up his position? (and "logistics"? no.)
but no-one truly knows, do they? unless they have complete information on zaky's holdings, including dates, volumes, and prices. was he compensated for this piece? how much and by whom?
pony up, zaky.
Really? Do you think Zaky is trying to move AAPL stock by posting an article on AI? That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Consider the fact that AAPL has a market cap of 350 billion dollars. How in the hell could an AI article move the stock even one penny. The tactic of posting nonsense articles to move a stock works with micro cap stocks (i.e., market caps less than 100 million). It would never work with a stock like AAPL and anyone smart enough to post the article written by Zaky would know that.
Secondly, Zaky's comments are a discussion of a balance sheet. I've never heard of anyone trying to surreptitiously move a stock by analyzing a company's balance sheet. (unless maybe the numbers were fabricated, which is clearly not the case with Zaky's article)
Comments
What - this one wasn't enough?!?
Yeah... Couldn't he have put it on a bumper sticker so that you wouldn't have to think so hard?
So the author thinks he knows better than the many thousands of market participants, weighing all the pros and cons, who have made the price what it is. He is smarter than *all those thousands.*
Mate, there is a place for those who think they're smarter than everybody else: Washington, D.C.
Knee jerk right wing ism much?
Always right? No of course not. Always fairly? Yes. By definition.
I think AMZN would prove that theory wrong. Trading at a P/E of 100 with a poor outlook and a not so impressive Quarter. I don't see the logic behind assuming Amazon will grow so rapidly while Apple would stagnate, considering past performance more than squashes that, along with logical assumptions about the future, and both companies positions to maintain and accelerate growth.
- extremely high P/E and without solid earnings support (Amazon...)
- small price stocks and hope to their prices will go up quickly
- feel expensive when the stock price is higher then $100
- prefer some companies with high gearing ratio (Debt > Asset)
- Ignore the importance of free Cash
- Higher market share stocks without considering the actual net profit %
- me-too and Copy Cat companies (Dell, M$, Samgsung, HTC....)
World is always full of conflict and ridiculous. People always want to buy some stocks ...
- extremely high P/E and without solid earnings support (Amazon...)
- small price stocks and hope to their prices will go up quickly
- feel expensive when the stock price is higher then $100
- prefer some companies with high gearing ratio (Debt > Asset)
- Ignore the importance of free Cash
- Higher market share stocks without considering the actual net profit %
- me-too and Copy Cat companies (Dell, M$, Samgsung, HTC....)
Wise comment, probably based on first hand stock exchange experience ... (I mean it, this is no joke)
A P/E below 15 on a stock that is not in a decline makes it "safe". Now if you think the stock still has growth in it, that means the stock is at a bargain price.
The opposite of this are insane P/E stocks. Those stocks are extremely risky: look at NFLX (it went down like a bag of potatoes and now the P/E is better) or AMZN (that thing is going to crash at some point because its impossible to produce enough growth to match that p/e). The thing I would like is Apple to start paying dividends because why am I investing if something if I dont have part of the profits? fundamentals is key here.
I'm also very long AAPL and understand your frustration, Andy makes a solid case for being long AAPL.
I would suggest you look into shorting S&P 500 futures vs. your long AAPL position on a 20-40 delta.(i.e. for $1,000,000 long of AAPL you short $200,000- $400,000 of S&P futures).
As the market heads lower(and takes AAPL lower with it), you slowly buy back your short S&P 500. As the market heads higher, you slowly increase your short S&P delta.
The advantages of this strategy:
1. This is a good way to profit on the markets volatility.
2. You'll receive AAPL's outperformance of the S&P 500 over the next few years.
3. You get less emotional about the overall market
4. The short-term gains you receive in S&Ps, after re-adjusting your delta, are taxed at a 60/40 rate(short term/long term)
" the stock owner should not be too concerned with erratic fluctuations in stock prices, since in the short term, the stock market behaves like a voting machine, but in the long term it acts like a weighing machine"
-Ben Graham
Investing means contributing money to a company to help it grow and to benefit from that "investment" if the company does in fact grow.
None of the money that one invests is "contributed to a company to help it grow", unless you are buying stock directly from the company, such as in an IPO.
Your entire premise is incorrect, and so too are your conclusions.
It's unfortunate that no one but the British will properly parse the sarcasm pasted all over this article. Without a doubt the best AI article I've read in a long time.
Couldn't agree more. The poster that was complaining about financial news on an Apple fanboy site must not realize that many of us here own substantial amounts of Apple stock (in my case tens of thousands of dollars and I'm sure there are others with hundreds of thousands or more). I read this website as an indicator of the market segment and AAPL in particular. I already know most of the information in the article, but it is certainly an appropriate and good article for AI to publish.
None of the money that one "invests" in a stock goes to the company to "help it grow", unless you are buying stock directly from the company, such as in an IPO.
Your entire premise is incorrect, and so too are your conclusions.
You are only half right. Most companies, including AAPL have stock that is "on the shelf" and can be used by the company at any time to serve its own purposes. For example, shelf stock is often used to compensate management for doing a good job. And yes, the stock price will have a direct impact on how the recipients of this stock are motivated to stay with the company or wait out the period of time necessary for the stock to vest. If you subscribe to the theory that a company is only as good as the people running it, then the stock price is a critical aspect of building a company because it can be used to recruit and keep talented people.
What happened? Did you just take a 'teenager pill'?
I was just condensing the content of the article. Trying to get into the spirit of things.
You can see more evidence of this scenario in the fact that AAPL has been used recently as a hedge against volatility. When the market plunges, investors are moving into AAPL short term as a hedge against risk because there is so much value in AAPL because of its good balance sheet.
i'm with frugality on this one. what are the holdings of the author? and why does the original article mention that they're a holder, when the article as posted in the comments says just the above? edit?
and how about the timing? what would this article have read like just five weeks ago, when aapl was trading in the mid 420s?
i'd like to see an in-depth analysis by someone who doesn't have money at stake in the game. cuz i'll guarantee you, zaky is in it for the money.
That's BS. Having AAPL Shares doesn't discredit ones opinion, namely when they're stating facts and logistics. In fact, it backs up their claims as they're putting their money where their mouths are.
There's a difference between corrupt hyperbole and logical arguments for something you believe in/are invested in.
is he really putting his money where his mouth is? or is he trying to shore up his position? (and "logistics"? no.)
but no-one truly knows, do they? unless they have complete information on zaky's holdings, including dates, volumes, and prices. was he compensated for this piece? how much and by whom?
pony up, zaky.
The future of a stock's performance is of course based on past performance, anyone who does any sort of prognostication in any field will confirm that - the stock market is a major proponent of that simple fact, and you can't simply reverse the whole underpinnings of the financials market to suit your opinion.
The iPhone 4S was anything but underwhelming and calling out wider delivery to other countries is rather silly. Would you have rather they continued to ignore or delay these other countries for the mere convenience of being same/same for comparison purposes to the iPhone 4 launch? That requires an absurd level of denial. If anything the market would (under other circumstances and with another company perhaps) have REWARDED such strategy.
The market as a whole is not trading in AAPL stock, there are specific reasons that the P/E ratio is being suppressed. Most other companies in the same category are underperforming and Apple is the only one that is overperforming. If you look at the primary stockholders for AAPL, you will see the actual reason behind the supression of the P/E ratio. The primary shareholders in Apple stock include FMR, Vanguard, State Street, T. Rowe Price, BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, Capital World Investors, Capital Research Global Investors, Invesco Ltd., JP Morgan Chase, Northern Trust Corp, Fidelity Contra, GFA, Powershares, and College Retirement Equities. 70% of Apple stock is held by these institutional shareholders. Understanding that, it is simple to look for them to attempt a "slingshot" effect by supressing Apple stock until the P/E ratio pressure is high enough to push it into rapid decompression effectively driving the valuation up to a significantly higher hold point. At which point they can begin doing the same thing all over again. These institutional investors are playing with Apple stock because it is the strongest performer in the market among the large cap set.
So the "great many people" you know that won't touch Apple stock are going to be very chagrined when these investors release the pressure on Apple stock and let it snap up to the next hold point.
I think you place too much emphasis on the ability of the large institutional investors to coordinate their efforts. These guys are as greedy as they come. There is no way they can work together to accomplish what you suggest because they could never trust one another. I agree that the price is being controlled by the large institutional investors, but I think the controlling factor is the need for diversification, not conspiracy theory.
I think the lesson here is that AAPL is a great long term investment for individual investors. It has the least risk and good growth potential of any stock out there.
Why does this stock booster article (by a company that owns stock) claim P/E of 8.25 on the front page when the actual P/E is 13? No self interest in making it look even more "undervalued"?
My guess is that 13 is trailing, based upon actual performance, while 8.25 is leading, based upon guesswork as to the future.
is he really putting his money where his mouth is? or is he trying to shore up his position? (and "logistics"? no.)
but no-one truly knows, do they? unless they have complete information on zaky's holdings, including dates, volumes, and prices. was he compensated for this piece? how much and by whom?
pony up, zaky.
Really? Do you think Zaky is trying to move AAPL stock by posting an article on AI? That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Consider the fact that AAPL has a market cap of 350 billion dollars. How in the hell could an AI article move the stock even one penny. The tactic of posting nonsense articles to move a stock works with micro cap stocks (i.e., market caps less than 100 million). It would never work with a stock like AAPL and anyone smart enough to post the article written by Zaky would know that.
Secondly, Zaky's comments are a discussion of a balance sheet. I've never heard of anyone trying to surreptitiously move a stock by analyzing a company's balance sheet. (unless maybe the numbers were fabricated, which is clearly not the case with Zaky's article)