When deciding a couple years ago to sink a bunch of money into a tech stock I ended up going with IBM and have been pretty happy with that choice.
Obviously I considered Apple, but the cost even then was really high and I was concerned not only by the fact that Steve WAS Apple at least in terms of perception, but also with the increased Sony-fication of Apple.
IBM meanwhile continues staying out of the headlines and doing a huge amount of research and development. And has been around much longer.
Disclaimer: I own one share in Apple stock (was a birthday gift several years ago). Actually I think they had 2? splits since then, so I guess I own 4 shares.
Wrong. If you'd bother to read AZ's contributions over the years, you would know about the times he's recommended holding, selling, crossing or staying out altogether. Within the timeframe of his writing an article, he calls AAPL as he sees it. He'll be the first to tell you that he couldn't pump or dump except as he brings true perspectives to a less-than-rational market. If people buy into the facts he brings out, so much the better for transparency. Take, for instance, the belated recognition of the deferred subscription issue a couple years ago by the Wall Street community. It only came about after Andy repeatedly berated them for their flawed financial analysis that brought about an almost-criminal undervaluation by the analyst herd. Finally they wised up and Andy was no longer the prophet preaching in a wilderness of stupidity. In sum, Andy could no more pump AAPL than you could be knowing what you're talking about.
Facts. You mean like the 8.25 P/E that doesn't actually seem to exist.
You should be long on APPL if you're not short on it, or if the P/E is not elevated to the proper elevation that is necessary according to the long term predictions of the short term sales that were shorted in the previous predictions by the long shorters who shorted each other in the first place ....
Yada yada drivel yada drivel yada yada
Wall Street and Stock Market
What a load of shit
And some of you here go along with it all ?
Please - if you are SO Smart that you know to USE Apple Computers and iGizmos
Then why are you so stupid you buy into the 'Micro-Wall-Stock-Soft-Street-Market' Crap Shoot Lotto Poker Game ?
Yes, is ONE thing to own some stock, and hold it for the long haul - what it's supposed to be about in the first place - but is another to play 'fsck your neighbor before he fsck you and all you both end up doing in the end is fsck each other'
AND - in light of 'recent events' on Wall Street
(can you say 'we fscked up big time and lost YOUR money, but we made out ok, ha ha')
How can anyone trust them, believe them, and GIVE THEM MONEY ?
Damn, and you claim to be an Apple User ?
You profess to Think Different ?
Go back to Windoze, and take your Stock Market with you
All you're doing is messing it up the rest of us
As WE try to 'Change the World'
.
Good, glad to get THAT off my chest
Now, if you'll excuse me ...
Gotta go do the math on the $1,000 of APPL I bought about 10 years ago at $11 a share
Yea, if YOU're so fscking smart, why didn't YOU buy back then too ?
Looking at Apple from the perspective of a major wall street firm, Apple might not be regarded as a "good customer" because:
1. it doesn't borrow money through the bank loan market
2. it doesn't issue bonds or stock
3. it doesn't pay dividends
4. it is not doing a bunch of massive mergers / acquisitions
5. based on their latest 10-K, they are not a massive user of derivatives
In short, Apple is a lot more self-sufficient than most major corporations. And, like many tech companies, they do not subscribe to the premise that they must leverage themselves to the hilt in the name of "generating shareholder value."
Major wall street firms have some influence on the editorial content of the financial press. I am not advancing conspiracy-theory nonsense mind you. But they do provide experts, content, research, and the like, and they pay advertising fees. So one would think that banks would, all else equal, have an incentive to say good things about their best (most lucrative) customers and not-so-good-things about their less lucrative customers.
As a sanity check, someone with more time than I have could do a simple study: Compare some measure of the tone, positive/negative, of financial media reporting for each of the 100 largest public companies versus some estimate of how much those companies engage in financial transactions (acquisitions, capital markets activity, derivatives, etc.). It would not be perfect, but it should be reasonably do-able. I would venture a guess that the relationship is positive, but I would certainly be convinced otherwise if the evidence is to the contrary.
"Andy M. Zaky is a fund manager at Bullish Cross Capital, an Appleinsider contributor and runs the financial newsletter, Bullish Cross. Bullish Cross Capital owns Apple as a major holding in the portfolio."
Talk about pumping up a stock you own.
While I do agree and I do own stock in apple, I think investors see all the incredible (unbelievable) profits apple has made and think they can not sustain this growth. I think they are wrong but buying stock is all about the future and if you don't think a company will continue to grow at this pace, you will not want the stock.
False. Manipulating a Stock in a direction would be spewing the BS hyperbole and theoretical, emotionally based drivel that some Analysts and yourself do when stating things like "ooh, scary, they can't sustain this growth", and not focusing on the logistics behind what would be credible growth for the worlds biggest Company, and Apple's position currently.
The Article in question is based on FACTS and facts only. I'd guess any of these naysayers who clearly have an emotional bias against the Company or Stock at this time, didn't even read the Article past the headline.
Problem is, there are far too many facts that show how strongly Apple is progressing right now. Today, there were reports about them moving up to 5th in the Black Friday Web-based-traffic Chart. That is INCREDIBLE for a Company that is not an all-out Retailer, selling all kinds of different products (i.e Amazon, Best Buy, Target, etc.).
However, the same theoretical, emotionally charged negative hyperbole always seems to come up, "iPad Growth", "Parts Suppliers", these guys keep beating the drum to manipulate the Stock with headlines, when all that the serious and savvy Investor should focus on, are facts, which all weigh in AAPL's favor.
Funny thing is, all that negative hyperbole is already factored into the Stock. The Stock is trading at a range that practically has assumed that the iPad doesn't exist!
Facts. You mean like the 8.25 P/E that doesn't actually seem to exist.
Looks like pumping major holding to me.
Also wrong.
That's Forward P/E, which is a commonly used ratio for investment decisions, based on the consensus of analysts' AAPL earnings estimates for the coming 12 months. Currently that's around $44/share and was applied to the market low of around $363 at the close of trading last week, when this article was published. Capiche?
God save us from the financially naive and inept. One last time. If you're gonna dive into an unfamiliar mosh pit like impressing people with your brilliant opinions about the stock market, at least get off your butt and get the book learning down first. It'll keep you from dribbling nonsense out of your pie-hole. Otherwise you're only confirming in everyone's minds the low opinion that your ex-girlfriends already have of you.
sad state for apple. great company makes great profits , but crummy stock .
andy zaky has been telling everyone how great apple is for years saying its only a matter of time before it skyrockets. hasn't happened yet. keep holding your breath.
all these analysis can not predict the stock price.
sad state for apple. great company makes great profits , but crummy stock .
andy zaky has been telling everyone how great apple is for years saying its only a matter of time before it skyrockets. hasn't happened yet. keep holding your breath.
all these analysis can not predict the stock price.
Uhh....
AAPL may have underperformed compared to the Company's performance, however, the Stock has grown outstandingly through the years. If you bought it in 2000, you can swim in the profits, if you bought it in 2008, you can swim in the profits, and if you bought it in 2010, you can swim in the profits. Hell, if you bought it in July 2011, when AAPL had its traditional downward-push and fear-monger tactics falsified all over it (like what's happening now), getting it almost below $300, you can swim in the profits, especially if you sold at close to the mid $400's where it quickly got.
Yeah I read that article and commented over at SA.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and stock prices really are just a metric of opinion. I would point out that the author of that article feels that Apple could fall too or even below $85 per share despite the fact that Apple currently has about $88 per share in cash.
If that makes sense to you, then you should short Apple stock right here, right now.
That Seeking Alpha article was bafflingly beyond words. Someone must have hacked into that guys account and wrote that drivel!
He says that AAPL is "too expensive", citing no facts or technicalities (like the Author of the Article headlining this very Thread did so astutely) aside from its high ticker Price (childs play), states that it should get to a "Fair Value" level BELOW ITS CASH PER SHARE, which is impossible, not to mention, there are companies headed straight for Bankruptcy trading for P/E's higher than AAPL would if it got even to the mid $200's, and as the cherry on cake, he compared Steve Jobs dying to Saddam Hussein dying. Best part of that Article is how many people are justifiably ripping that inane and irresponsible "Author" a new one.
What is needed to move Apple stock is a 10:1 stock split and possibly a dividend.
Yep its amazing how many people I know thinks a stock is expensive because of its price. A lower price would probably draw investors even if it doesn't change anything.
Has far has dividend is concern I completely agreed, but for me its because of the basic principle of stocks ownership... there is no point of having a stock if its not returning anything. When you buy a small cap that make no profits, the "value" of the stocks is base on future profits. But now we have companies making billions and not paying a dime to there owners. Theoretically, if Apple never pays dividends, its not worth anything. The market is now so far away from fundamentals that its no wonder the financial markets are nothing but a gambling feast.
I like the price has it is now, I would rather own a stock that rise on earnings than an overprice stock that free fall because earnings didn't meet expectations. AAPL is a very very "safe" stock atm.
Yeah, it's obviously psychological, but it's the way it is.
My theory as to why AMZN is so overvalued and bloated is because investors who want to get into "Sexy Tech Stocks" look to a group of household names: Apple, Google, Amazon, etc. Amazon is a recognizable, solid, reputable company, like the others, and while not as "sexy", it does the job, and is priced much less than the far more undervalued Stocks mentioned. Therefore, people flock To AMZN as they can get 100 Shares at around $20K, while 100 shares of Apple hover around $40K.
AAPL needs a split, badly. We can talk about logical reasons as to why it doesn't matter, but fact is, the Market is illogical in many ways, Everyday-Joe Investors are illogical in many ways, and a high number is much more commanding and noticeable than a low P/E (many Investors don't even know what a P/E is, hence AMZN's price). People see a high number, they see tons of room to go down, forgoing most rationale.
With AAPL at $40, people running on emotion (most all Investors) will see it as a great bargain, and I can see the price getting driven up drastically. I for one would probably stock up on a lot more Shares if the price went down. At this current rate, I'm buying 10 Shares every time the price drops about $10 or so, however, for a measly 10 shares you're looking at almost $4K. To most Investors, it's too small a chunk of the company.
It's not Apple's job to pander to idiots who will buy on emotion rather than do some research before buying stock. Those fools are probably the people who brag about their "success" at parties when what they did was no better than throwing darts at the stock page in the Wall Street Journal. While stock investing can be thought of as no better than such an activity, at least those who bothered to do some due diligence could say that they tried to get it right but ended up losing in the end.
What is needed to move Apple stock is a 10:1 stock split and possibly a dividend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
Yep its amazing how many people I know thinks a stock is expensive because of its price. A lower price would probably draw investors even if it doesn't change anything.
Has far has dividend is concern I completely agreed, but for me its because of the basic principle of stocks ownership... there is no point of having a stock if its not returning anything. When you buy a small cap that make no profits, the "value" of the stocks is base on future profits. But now we have companies making billions and not paying a dime to there owners. Theoretically, if Apple never pays dividends, its not worth anything. The market is now so far away from fundamentals that its no wonder the financial markets are nothing but a gambling feast.
I like the price has it is now, I would rather own a stock that rise on earnings than an overprice stock that free fall because earnings didn't meet expectations. AAPL is a very very "safe" stock atm.
A stock split yes. Dividend, no. Even at its size, AAPL is able to continue to act as a growth company and dividends would dilute its potential in that area. Microsoft finally declared a dividend because they were no long able to deliver growth stock type share performance. Meanwhile, they've raised it, but their dividend since then hasn't been that great - and their stock just got STUCK when they started paying divs and hasn't done anything really for years now. The above post's contention that stocks that never pay dividends are "worthless" is a totally specious (and ideological) argument - but first this about a split:
However a 10:1 or even a 5:1 split would have the important effect of making 100 share lots affordable to many small or "retail" investors. Anything below 100 shares is considered an "odd lot" and brokers don't like to deal with them. Making the stock harder and more expensive (when viewed in terms of fees, commissions, etc. per share) to obtain.
$40,000 is a steep entry fee. $4,000 or even close to $10,000 for 100 shares would bring in a lot of demand from those who'd like to own (and hold) their own piece of AAPL pie.
Back to dividends vs. stock price appreciation, slightly simplified for space, but sound in principle: profitable value company stock benefits are taken by shareholders largely as dividends, but successful growth stock company benefits are taken by cashing in capital gains. So the growth company investor has to ultimately sell some stock to take some profits. Not recognizing this simple fact should disqualify one for investing in stocks at all if one believes "now we have companies making billions and not paying a dime to there owners."
[it's "their owners," btw - you treat stock investing like you're "Occupying the S&P 500" and you're ungrammatical to boot, e.g., "its" should be "it's" and "think a stock" not "think a stock" - and well, forget it - there's 10 or 15 more. I'm not usually such a pedant, but I think your mastery of language in this is a good gauge of how seriously anyone should take your pronouncements on investing.]
Unprofitable companies can't pay dividends forever, and growth companies which quit growing won't deliver capital gains.
However let's take up "no wonder the financial markets are nothing but a gambling feast" for a second [whatever a "gambling feast" might be]. The stock market as a whole over the last 120 years or so is no gamble - it's done better than any other class of investing over that whole period. Real estate is a close second. But savings accounts and gold and many other things lag far behind. The stock markets have been adulterated and destabilized lately though, both by private and public forces. Everyone wants to blame rapacious "greedy" corporations - and the banks and financial institutions have certainly played fast and loose with their exotic instruments - but they were enabled and empowered primarily by government in doing so - not just the US govt - govt's all over the world - and the real game is how the value of money is being diluted and destroyed by debt (for which governments require big banks to act as launderers of all the funny money in circulation - which has climbed monumentally since all the world's currencies were allowed to float independently of anything in the real world since 1971 when the last connection to gold was severed.
Ever since politicians have been able to print money to keep promises to everybody, every crony corporation, etc. in an explosion of benefits, bailouts, bizarre spending programs, lavish entourages (public and private) and more.
Apple's fundamentals are fine. The US gov't's? The Eurozone? All the Central Banks and monetary funds? Not. So. Much.
my classmate's sister-in-law makes $84 hourly on the laptop. She has been fired for 7 months but last month her income was $9078 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Go to this site NuttyRich.cöm
Comments
Obviously I considered Apple, but the cost even then was really high and I was concerned not only by the fact that Steve WAS Apple at least in terms of perception, but also with the increased Sony-fication of Apple.
IBM meanwhile continues staying out of the headlines and doing a huge amount of research and development. And has been around much longer.
Disclaimer: I own one share in Apple stock (was a birthday gift several years ago). Actually I think they had 2? splits since then, so I guess I own 4 shares.
Wrong. If you'd bother to read AZ's contributions over the years, you would know about the times he's recommended holding, selling, crossing or staying out altogether. Within the timeframe of his writing an article, he calls AAPL as he sees it. He'll be the first to tell you that he couldn't pump or dump except as he brings true perspectives to a less-than-rational market. If people buy into the facts he brings out, so much the better for transparency. Take, for instance, the belated recognition of the deferred subscription issue a couple years ago by the Wall Street community. It only came about after Andy repeatedly berated them for their flawed financial analysis that brought about an almost-criminal undervaluation by the analyst herd. Finally they wised up and Andy was no longer the prophet preaching in a wilderness of stupidity. In sum, Andy could no more pump AAPL than you could be knowing what you're talking about.
Facts. You mean like the 8.25 P/E that doesn't actually seem to exist.
Looks like pumping major holding to me.
You should be long on APPL if you're not short on it, or if the P/E is not elevated to the proper elevation that is necessary according to the long term predictions of the short term sales that were shorted in the previous predictions by the long shorters who shorted each other in the first place ....
Yada yada drivel yada drivel yada yada
Wall Street and Stock Market
What a load of shit
And some of you here go along with it all ?
Please - if you are SO Smart that you know to USE Apple Computers and iGizmos
Then why are you so stupid you buy into the 'Micro-Wall-Stock-Soft-Street-Market' Crap Shoot Lotto Poker Game ?
Yes, is ONE thing to own some stock, and hold it for the long haul - what it's supposed to be about in the first place - but is another to play 'fsck your neighbor before he fsck you and all you both end up doing in the end is fsck each other'
AND - in light of 'recent events' on Wall Street
(can you say 'we fscked up big time and lost YOUR money, but we made out ok, ha ha')
How can anyone trust them, believe them, and GIVE THEM MONEY ?
Damn, and you claim to be an Apple User ?
You profess to Think Different ?
Go back to Windoze, and take your Stock Market with you
All you're doing is messing it up the rest of us
As WE try to 'Change the World'
.
Good, glad to get THAT off my chest
Now, if you'll excuse me ...
Gotta go do the math on the $1,000 of APPL I bought about 10 years ago at $11 a share
Yea, if YOU're so fscking smart, why didn't YOU buy back then too ?
.
.
1. it doesn't borrow money through the bank loan market
2. it doesn't issue bonds or stock
3. it doesn't pay dividends
4. it is not doing a bunch of massive mergers / acquisitions
5. based on their latest 10-K, they are not a massive user of derivatives
In short, Apple is a lot more self-sufficient than most major corporations. And, like many tech companies, they do not subscribe to the premise that they must leverage themselves to the hilt in the name of "generating shareholder value."
Major wall street firms have some influence on the editorial content of the financial press. I am not advancing conspiracy-theory nonsense mind you. But they do provide experts, content, research, and the like, and they pay advertising fees. So one would think that banks would, all else equal, have an incentive to say good things about their best (most lucrative) customers and not-so-good-things about their less lucrative customers.
As a sanity check, someone with more time than I have could do a simple study: Compare some measure of the tone, positive/negative, of financial media reporting for each of the 100 largest public companies versus some estimate of how much those companies engage in financial transactions (acquisitions, capital markets activity, derivatives, etc.). It would not be perfect, but it should be reasonably do-able. I would venture a guess that the relationship is positive, but I would certainly be convinced otherwise if the evidence is to the contrary.
"Andy M. Zaky is a fund manager at Bullish Cross Capital, an Appleinsider contributor and runs the financial newsletter, Bullish Cross. Bullish Cross Capital owns Apple as a major holding in the portfolio."
Talk about pumping up a stock you own.
While I do agree and I do own stock in apple, I think investors see all the incredible (unbelievable) profits apple has made and think they can not sustain this growth. I think they are wrong but buying stock is all about the future and if you don't think a company will continue to grow at this pace, you will not want the stock.
False. Manipulating a Stock in a direction would be spewing the BS hyperbole and theoretical, emotionally based drivel that some Analysts and yourself do when stating things like "ooh, scary, they can't sustain this growth", and not focusing on the logistics behind what would be credible growth for the worlds biggest Company, and Apple's position currently.
The Article in question is based on FACTS and facts only. I'd guess any of these naysayers who clearly have an emotional bias against the Company or Stock at this time, didn't even read the Article past the headline.
Problem is, there are far too many facts that show how strongly Apple is progressing right now. Today, there were reports about them moving up to 5th in the Black Friday Web-based-traffic Chart. That is INCREDIBLE for a Company that is not an all-out Retailer, selling all kinds of different products (i.e Amazon, Best Buy, Target, etc.).
However, the same theoretical, emotionally charged negative hyperbole always seems to come up, "iPad Growth", "Parts Suppliers", these guys keep beating the drum to manipulate the Stock with headlines, when all that the serious and savvy Investor should focus on, are facts, which all weigh in AAPL's favor.
Funny thing is, all that negative hyperbole is already factored into the Stock. The Stock is trading at a range that practically has assumed that the iPad doesn't exist!
Facts. You mean like the 8.25 P/E that doesn't actually seem to exist.
Looks like pumping major holding to me.
Also wrong.
That's Forward P/E, which is a commonly used ratio for investment decisions, based on the consensus of analysts' AAPL earnings estimates for the coming 12 months. Currently that's around $44/share and was applied to the market low of around $363 at the close of trading last week, when this article was published. Capiche?
God save us from the financially naive and inept. One last time. If you're gonna dive into an unfamiliar mosh pit like impressing people with your brilliant opinions about the stock market, at least get off your butt and get the book learning down first. It'll keep you from dribbling nonsense out of your pie-hole. Otherwise you're only confirming in everyone's minds the low opinion that your ex-girlfriends already have of you.
andy zaky has been telling everyone how great apple is for years saying its only a matter of time before it skyrockets. hasn't happened yet. keep holding your breath.
all these analysis can not predict the stock price.
sad state for apple. great company makes great profits , but crummy stock .
andy zaky has been telling everyone how great apple is for years saying its only a matter of time before it skyrockets. hasn't happened yet. keep holding your breath.
all these analysis can not predict the stock price.
Uhh....
AAPL may have underperformed compared to the Company's performance, however, the Stock has grown outstandingly through the years. If you bought it in 2000, you can swim in the profits, if you bought it in 2008, you can swim in the profits, and if you bought it in 2010, you can swim in the profits. Hell, if you bought it in July 2011, when AAPL had its traditional downward-push and fear-monger tactics falsified all over it (like what's happening now), getting it almost below $300, you can swim in the profits, especially if you sold at close to the mid $400's where it quickly got.
So many different views
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3108...rst?source=msn
Yeah I read that article and commented over at SA.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and stock prices really are just a metric of opinion. I would point out that the author of that article feels that Apple could fall too or even below $85 per share despite the fact that Apple currently has about $88 per share in cash.
If that makes sense to you, then you should short Apple stock right here, right now.
He says that AAPL is "too expensive", citing no facts or technicalities (like the Author of the Article headlining this very Thread did so astutely) aside from its high ticker Price (childs play), states that it should get to a "Fair Value" level BELOW ITS CASH PER SHARE, which is impossible, not to mention, there are companies headed straight for Bankruptcy trading for P/E's higher than AAPL would if it got even to the mid $200's, and as the cherry on cake, he compared Steve Jobs dying to Saddam Hussein dying. Best part of that Article is how many people are justifiably ripping that inane and irresponsible "Author" a new one.
Brilliant.
What is needed to move Apple stock is a 10:1 stock split and possibly a dividend.
Yep its amazing how many people I know thinks a stock is expensive because of its price. A lower price would probably draw investors even if it doesn't change anything.
Has far has dividend is concern I completely agreed, but for me its because of the basic principle of stocks ownership... there is no point of having a stock if its not returning anything. When you buy a small cap that make no profits, the "value" of the stocks is base on future profits. But now we have companies making billions and not paying a dime to there owners. Theoretically, if Apple never pays dividends, its not worth anything. The market is now so far away from fundamentals that its no wonder the financial markets are nothing but a gambling feast.
I like the price has it is now, I would rather own a stock that rise on earnings than an overprice stock that free fall because earnings didn't meet expectations. AAPL is a very very "safe" stock atm.
Yeah, it's obviously psychological, but it's the way it is.
My theory as to why AMZN is so overvalued and bloated is because investors who want to get into "Sexy Tech Stocks" look to a group of household names: Apple, Google, Amazon, etc. Amazon is a recognizable, solid, reputable company, like the others, and while not as "sexy", it does the job, and is priced much less than the far more undervalued Stocks mentioned. Therefore, people flock To AMZN as they can get 100 Shares at around $20K, while 100 shares of Apple hover around $40K.
AAPL needs a split, badly. We can talk about logical reasons as to why it doesn't matter, but fact is, the Market is illogical in many ways, Everyday-Joe Investors are illogical in many ways, and a high number is much more commanding and noticeable than a low P/E (many Investors don't even know what a P/E is, hence AMZN's price). People see a high number, they see tons of room to go down, forgoing most rationale.
With AAPL at $40, people running on emotion (most all Investors) will see it as a great bargain, and I can see the price getting driven up drastically. I for one would probably stock up on a lot more Shares if the price went down. At this current rate, I'm buying 10 Shares every time the price drops about $10 or so, however, for a measly 10 shares you're looking at almost $4K. To most Investors, it's too small a chunk of the company.
It's not Apple's job to pander to idiots who will buy on emotion rather than do some research before buying stock. Those fools are probably the people who brag about their "success" at parties when what they did was no better than throwing darts at the stock page in the Wall Street Journal. While stock investing can be thought of as no better than such an activity, at least those who bothered to do some due diligence could say that they tried to get it right but ended up losing in the end.
What is needed to move Apple stock is a 10:1 stock split and possibly a dividend.
Yep its amazing how many people I know thinks a stock is expensive because of its price. A lower price would probably draw investors even if it doesn't change anything.
Has far has dividend is concern I completely agreed, but for me its because of the basic principle of stocks ownership... there is no point of having a stock if its not returning anything. When you buy a small cap that make no profits, the "value" of the stocks is base on future profits. But now we have companies making billions and not paying a dime to there owners. Theoretically, if Apple never pays dividends, its not worth anything. The market is now so far away from fundamentals that its no wonder the financial markets are nothing but a gambling feast.
I like the price has it is now, I would rather own a stock that rise on earnings than an overprice stock that free fall because earnings didn't meet expectations. AAPL is a very very "safe" stock atm.
A stock split yes. Dividend, no. Even at its size, AAPL is able to continue to act as a growth company and dividends would dilute its potential in that area. Microsoft finally declared a dividend because they were no long able to deliver growth stock type share performance. Meanwhile, they've raised it, but their dividend since then hasn't been that great - and their stock just got STUCK when they started paying divs and hasn't done anything really for years now. The above post's contention that stocks that never pay dividends are "worthless" is a totally specious (and ideological) argument - but first this about a split:
However a 10:1 or even a 5:1 split would have the important effect of making 100 share lots affordable to many small or "retail" investors. Anything below 100 shares is considered an "odd lot" and brokers don't like to deal with them. Making the stock harder and more expensive (when viewed in terms of fees, commissions, etc. per share) to obtain.
$40,000 is a steep entry fee. $4,000 or even close to $10,000 for 100 shares would bring in a lot of demand from those who'd like to own (and hold) their own piece of AAPL pie.
Back to dividends vs. stock price appreciation, slightly simplified for space, but sound in principle: profitable value company stock benefits are taken by shareholders largely as dividends, but successful growth stock company benefits are taken by cashing in capital gains. So the growth company investor has to ultimately sell some stock to take some profits. Not recognizing this simple fact should disqualify one for investing in stocks at all if one believes "now we have companies making billions and not paying a dime to there owners."
[it's "their owners," btw - you treat stock investing like you're "Occupying the S&P 500" and you're ungrammatical to boot, e.g., "its" should be "it's" and "think a stock" not "think a stock" - and well, forget it - there's 10 or 15 more. I'm not usually such a pedant, but I think your mastery of language in this is a good gauge of how seriously anyone should take your pronouncements on investing.]
Unprofitable companies can't pay dividends forever, and growth companies which quit growing won't deliver capital gains.
However let's take up "no wonder the financial markets are nothing but a gambling feast" for a second [whatever a "gambling feast" might be]. The stock market as a whole over the last 120 years or so is no gamble - it's done better than any other class of investing over that whole period. Real estate is a close second. But savings accounts and gold and many other things lag far behind. The stock markets have been adulterated and destabilized lately though, both by private and public forces. Everyone wants to blame rapacious "greedy" corporations - and the banks and financial institutions have certainly played fast and loose with their exotic instruments - but they were enabled and empowered primarily by government in doing so - not just the US govt - govt's all over the world - and the real game is how the value of money is being diluted and destroyed by debt (for which governments require big banks to act as launderers of all the funny money in circulation - which has climbed monumentally since all the world's currencies were allowed to float independently of anything in the real world since 1971 when the last connection to gold was severed.
Ever since politicians have been able to print money to keep promises to everybody, every crony corporation, etc. in an explosion of benefits, bailouts, bizarre spending programs, lavish entourages (public and private) and more.
Apple's fundamentals are fine. The US gov't's? The Eurozone? All the Central Banks and monetary funds? Not. So. Much.