PetroChina crossed an implied $1 trillion in value in 2007, but that was because Chinese stock markets were on a bubble-ish tear at that time, the stock had just done an IPO, and the float was very small (<5%, I think). It is trading in the mid-$200Bs now.... (There were similar run-ups for Cisco and Micrsoft; their P/E ratios made no sense. Unlike that for Apple, which is still only ~15x).
The question to ask is: Could Apple be the world's first sustainably, reliably trillion dollar company?
(For the record, I think it's unlikely. But $750B is certainly in the realm of possibility).
It's not unlikely. Why should it be? It's only a number. There could be some resistance there, but it would break through. That's assuming Apple continues on a major growth pattern.
We're only talking about a doubling now. Four, five years? Sure it's possible.
So right. What the heck if it dips a while later, it will come back and go higher. 'Now' is the only time with AAPL
I see this all the time with financial managers. They're not really oriented towards making money for their client's that's above the averages of the markets. They ARE concerned with losing money for them.
I'll give two examples. In early January 2011, a friend had about $350,000 to add to his investments, and asked me for some advice. Naturally, I advised him to buy Apple, and he said that he would tell his financial adviser to do so. He has a managed account (ugh!). Several days later, we meet, and I ask him what happened. He said his advisor said that it was a good idea, and when it pulled back to $290 (it was about $320) he would do so. Well, we know what happened, it never pulled back, and he never bought the stock.
More recently, another friend showed me his account, another managed account. He had a lot of small, dippy investments. About half were up, and the rest about even, or down. I also said that he should get rid of about two thirds of it, and of course, buy Apple. That was about six months ago. Nothing happened when he asked. He told me that he approached his advisor again two weeks ago, and the guy agreed to buy some stock. He buys 60 shares! Today, I see him again, and we discuss it. I convince him to talk to the guy again, and TELL him to buy more. He does, and gets another 60 shares. The advisor is embarrassed he didn't buy anything six months ago, but he still didn't buy as much as he could of two weeks ago!
I see this all the time with financial managers. They're not really oriented towards making money for their client's that's above the averages of the markets. They ARE concerned with losing money for them.
I'll give two examples. In early January 2011, a friend had about $350,000 to add to his investments, and asked me for some advice. Naturally, I advised him to buy Apple, and he said that he would tell his financial adviser to do so. He has a managed account (ugh!). Several days later, we meet, and I ask him what happened. He said his advisor said that it was a good idea, and when it pulled back to $290 (it was about $320) he would do so. Well, we know what happened, it never pulled back, and he never bought the stock.
More recently, another friend showed me his account, another managed account. He had a lot of small, dippy investments. About half were up, and the rest about even, or down. I also said that he should get rid of about two thirds of it, and of course, buy Apple. That was about six months ago. Nothing happened when he asked. He told me that he approached his advisor again two weeks ago, and the guy agreed to buy some stock. He buys 60 shares! Today, I see him again, and we discuss it. I convince him to talk to the guy again, and TELL him to buy more. He does, and gets another 60 shares. The advisor is embarrassed he didn't buy anything six months ago, but he still didn't buy as much as he could of two weeks ago!
These guys are strange. They really are.
As you obviously know... They are maximizing their investments... Not yours...
I don't understand the stock market, which is probably why I don't have any shares. I always thought the point of owning shares was for the dividends. The higher the profits, the better the dividend and so the shares go up in line with the P/E ratio.
Apple doesn't pay any dividends so why does the share price keep going up every day? Surely if they don't pay any dividends there is no point owning the stock unless you think the stock is going to just keep going up and up which it might well do.
Either all the fund managers think Apple will pay a dividend sometime soon or they're looking to make a lot of money quickly by riding the tidal wave up. I wonder if the stock will come back down once they start selling to take their profits.
It's a strange world we live in.
Do you understand the difference between a growth company and a company whose significant growth is behind it? The first doesn't need to offer dividends, and the second requires it.
Apple has returned more to shareholders than any other large cap, at 47% over the past 12 months. Many financial people think that not only doesn't Apple need to offer a dividend, but shouldn't.
On the other hand, except for the beginning of this year, Microsoft does everything they're supposed to, share buybacks, dividends, but their stock hasn't risen in ten years. The current rise is because of Win 8, and the thought it will get them back on track with tablets, etc.
Which stock would you have liked to own over the past several years?
Do you understand the difference between a growth company and a company whose significant growth is behind it? The first doesn't need to offer dividends, and the second requires it.
Apple has returned more to shareholders than any other large cap, at 47% over the past 12 months. Many financial people think that not only doesn't Apple need to offer a dividend, but shouldn't.
On the other hand, except for the beginning of this year, Microsoft does everything they're supposed to, share buybacks, dividends, but their stock hasn't risen in ten years. The current rise is because of Win 8, and the thought it will get them back on track with tablets, etc.
Which stock would you have liked to own over the past several years?
I see this all the time with financial managers. They're not really oriented towards making money for their client's that's above the averages of the markets. They ARE concerned with losing money for them.
Here's another example of where you're making no sense: You're probably talking about 'money managers' not 'financial' managers (that's what managers who work in the office of a CFO are called, y'know).
"They ARE concerned with losing money"? What does that even mean? Unless you meant to add a "/s" at the end.
Maybe your experience is different, but I have not met anyone in my life that wakes up in the morning and says "today, I am going to go out and make decisions to lose money."
Here's another example of where you're making no sense: You're probably talking about 'money managers' not 'financial' managers (that's what managers who work in the office of a CFO are called, y'know).
"They ARE concerned with losing money"? What does that even mean? Unless you meant to add a "/s" at the end.
Maybe your experiences different, but I have not met anyone in my life that wakes up in the morning and says "today, I am going to go out and make decisions to lose money."
The problem is that most brokers/advisors make commission on churns...
The problem is that most brokers/advisors make commission on churns...
Of course they do. But not because they wake up in the morning with the goal of losing money on your behalf. They actually perhaps care about the fact that, if -- by luck or skill -- they end up making money for you, they stand a chance of making even higher commissions in the future from other unsuspecting folks!
If you knew as much about this as you think you do, it would be amazing!
From the Financial Times today:
Quote:
Shares in the iPhone maker rose by nearly 2 per cent to $535.41 on Tuesday, lifting its equity value to $504bn.
...
Unlike market capitalisation, which is based only on the number of a company’s shares in issue, equity value includes options and other instruments likely to be turned into stock in future, presenting a truer *picture of a company’s stock market value.
If you can see this page, it's the article where the quote comes from. Live and learn.
Here's another example of where you're making no sense: You're probably talking about 'money managers' not 'financial' managers (that's what managers who work in the office of a CFO are called, y'know).
"They ARE concerned with losing money"? What does that even mean? Unless you meant to add a "/s" at the end.
Maybe your experience is different, but I have not met anyone in my life that wakes up in the morning and says "today, I am going to go out and make decisions to lose money."
You know, this is just another time when you start spouting nonsense, and trivial junk. Sure, if you prefer "Money manager", fine. It's really not worth arguing about that.
They are concerned with losing money. That, you don't understand? What, are you trying to be obtuse? Would you have preferred me to word it differently? Should I have instead said they are concerned that they don't lose money? Would that have been easier for you to understand? It was pretty obvious as to what I meant. They are concerned about losing money. Concerned should have been a hint to you.
Why do you bother to even comment on these things? Your comments are so often off the wall.
Comments
PetroChina crossed an implied $1 trillion in value in 2007, but that was because Chinese stock markets were on a bubble-ish tear at that time, the stock had just done an IPO, and the float was very small (<5%, I think). It is trading in the mid-$200Bs now.... (There were similar run-ups for Cisco and Micrsoft; their P/E ratios made no sense. Unlike that for Apple, which is still only ~15x).
The question to ask is: Could Apple be the world's first sustainably, reliably trillion dollar company?
(For the record, I think it's unlikely. But $750B is certainly in the realm of possibility).
It's not unlikely. Why should it be? It's only a number. There could be some resistance there, but it would break through. That's assuming Apple continues on a major growth pattern.
We're only talking about a doubling now. Four, five years? Sure it's possible.
Both Yahoo Finance and Google Finance say that AAPL has 932.37M shares outstanding.
At the risk of sounding nitpicky, that would say $536.27, not $536.87.....
Again, market cap vs. equity. For equity, there are more shares being counted. Another several billion worth.
"Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do."
how would being insanely rich change the world?
they are already insanely rich, there are already insanely rich people and other companies...
call me when they decide to change the world.
because it looks like capitalism to me, hardly new.
different toys...same game.
So right. What the heck if it dips a while later, it will come back and go higher. 'Now' is the only time with AAPL
I see this all the time with financial managers. They're not really oriented towards making money for their client's that's above the averages of the markets. They ARE concerned with losing money for them.
I'll give two examples. In early January 2011, a friend had about $350,000 to add to his investments, and asked me for some advice. Naturally, I advised him to buy Apple, and he said that he would tell his financial adviser to do so. He has a managed account (ugh!). Several days later, we meet, and I ask him what happened. He said his advisor said that it was a good idea, and when it pulled back to $290 (it was about $320) he would do so. Well, we know what happened, it never pulled back, and he never bought the stock.
More recently, another friend showed me his account, another managed account. He had a lot of small, dippy investments. About half were up, and the rest about even, or down. I also said that he should get rid of about two thirds of it, and of course, buy Apple. That was about six months ago. Nothing happened when he asked. He told me that he approached his advisor again two weeks ago, and the guy agreed to buy some stock. He buys 60 shares! Today, I see him again, and we discuss it. I convince him to talk to the guy again, and TELL him to buy more. He does, and gets another 60 shares. The advisor is embarrassed he didn't buy anything six months ago, but he still didn't buy as much as he could of two weeks ago!
These guys are strange. They really are.
how would being insanely rich change the world?
they are already insanely rich, there are already insanely rich people and other companies...
call me when they decide to change the world.
because it looks like capitalism to me, hardly new.
different toys...same game.
Self interest and crusifictions are great motivators!
I see this all the time with financial managers. They're not really oriented towards making money for their client's that's above the averages of the markets. They ARE concerned with losing money for them.
I'll give two examples. In early January 2011, a friend had about $350,000 to add to his investments, and asked me for some advice. Naturally, I advised him to buy Apple, and he said that he would tell his financial adviser to do so. He has a managed account (ugh!). Several days later, we meet, and I ask him what happened. He said his advisor said that it was a good idea, and when it pulled back to $290 (it was about $320) he would do so. Well, we know what happened, it never pulled back, and he never bought the stock.
More recently, another friend showed me his account, another managed account. He had a lot of small, dippy investments. About half were up, and the rest about even, or down. I also said that he should get rid of about two thirds of it, and of course, buy Apple. That was about six months ago. Nothing happened when he asked. He told me that he approached his advisor again two weeks ago, and the guy agreed to buy some stock. He buys 60 shares! Today, I see him again, and we discuss it. I convince him to talk to the guy again, and TELL him to buy more. He does, and gets another 60 shares. The advisor is embarrassed he didn't buy anything six months ago, but he still didn't buy as much as he could of two weeks ago!
These guys are strange. They really are.
As you obviously know... They are maximizing their investments... Not yours...
Dumped those Russian Imperial Bonds, eh?
I don't understand the stock market, which is probably why I don't have any shares. I always thought the point of owning shares was for the dividends. The higher the profits, the better the dividend and so the shares go up in line with the P/E ratio.
Apple doesn't pay any dividends so why does the share price keep going up every day? Surely if they don't pay any dividends there is no point owning the stock unless you think the stock is going to just keep going up and up which it might well do.
Either all the fund managers think Apple will pay a dividend sometime soon or they're looking to make a lot of money quickly by riding the tidal wave up. I wonder if the stock will come back down once they start selling to take their profits.
It's a strange world we live in.
Do you understand the difference between a growth company and a company whose significant growth is behind it? The first doesn't need to offer dividends, and the second requires it.
Apple has returned more to shareholders than any other large cap, at 47% over the past 12 months. Many financial people think that not only doesn't Apple need to offer a dividend, but shouldn't.
On the other hand, except for the beginning of this year, Microsoft does everything they're supposed to, share buybacks, dividends, but their stock hasn't risen in ten years. The current rise is because of Win 8, and the thought it will get them back on track with tablets, etc.
Which stock would you have liked to own over the past several years?
Again, market cap vs. equity. For equity, there are more shares being counted. Another several billion worth.
You're making no sense.
As you obviously know... They are maximizing their investments... Not yours...
Surely not mine. I would never pay someone to manage my accounts.
Do you understand the difference between a growth company and a company whose significant growth is behind it? The first doesn't need to offer dividends, and the second requires it.
Apple has returned more to shareholders than any other large cap, at 47% over the past 12 months. Many financial people think that not only doesn't Apple need to offer a dividend, but shouldn't.
On the other hand, except for the beginning of this year, Microsoft does everything they're supposed to, share buybacks, dividends, but their stock hasn't risen in ten years. The current rise is because of Win 8, and the thought it will get them back on track with tablets, etc.
Which stock would you have liked to own over the past several years?
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/aapl/st...ff&symbol=MSFT
Note the orange flatline at the bottom of the chart!
You're making no sense.
It's your lack of understanding.
It's your lack of understanding.
You could have fooled me!
Surely not mine. I would never pay someone to manage my accounts.
Oye, Oye!
I see this all the time with financial managers. They're not really oriented towards making money for their client's that's above the averages of the markets. They ARE concerned with losing money for them.
Here's another example of where you're making no sense: You're probably talking about 'money managers' not 'financial' managers (that's what managers who work in the office of a CFO are called, y'know).
"They ARE concerned with losing money"? What does that even mean? Unless you meant to add a "/s" at the end.
Maybe your experience is different, but I have not met anyone in my life that wakes up in the morning and says "today, I am going to go out and make decisions to lose money."
Here's another example of where you're making no sense: You're probably talking about 'money managers' not 'financial' managers (that's what managers who work in the office of a CFO are called, y'know).
"They ARE concerned with losing money"? What does that even mean? Unless you meant to add a "/s" at the end.
Maybe your experiences different, but I have not met anyone in my life that wakes up in the morning and says "today, I am going to go out and make decisions to lose money."
The problem is that most brokers/advisors make commission on churns...
The problem is that most brokers/advisors make commission on churns...
Of course they do. But not because they wake up in the morning with the goal of losing money on your behalf. They actually perhaps care about the fact that, if -- by luck or skill -- they end up making money for you, they stand a chance of making even higher commissions in the future from other unsuspecting folks!
You could have fooled me!
If you knew as much about this as you think you do, it would be amazing!
From the Financial Times today:
Shares in the iPhone maker rose by nearly 2 per cent to $535.41 on Tuesday, lifting its equity value to $504bn.
...
Unlike market capitalisation, which is based only on the number of a company’s shares in issue, equity value includes options and other instruments likely to be turned into stock in future, presenting a truer *picture of a company’s stock market value.
If you can see this page, it's the article where the quote comes from. Live and learn.
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/a49cb...#axzz1niNRgfLJ
If you can't get it, the name of the article is:
Last updated: February 28, 2012 11:39 pm
Apple joins exclusive $500bn club
By Chris Nuttall and Richard Waters in San Francisco
Here's another example of where you're making no sense: You're probably talking about 'money managers' not 'financial' managers (that's what managers who work in the office of a CFO are called, y'know).
"They ARE concerned with losing money"? What does that even mean? Unless you meant to add a "/s" at the end.
Maybe your experience is different, but I have not met anyone in my life that wakes up in the morning and says "today, I am going to go out and make decisions to lose money."
You know, this is just another time when you start spouting nonsense, and trivial junk. Sure, if you prefer "Money manager", fine. It's really not worth arguing about that.
They are concerned with losing money. That, you don't understand? What, are you trying to be obtuse? Would you have preferred me to word it differently? Should I have instead said they are concerned that they don't lose money? Would that have been easier for you to understand? It was pretty obvious as to what I meant. They are concerned about losing money. Concerned should have been a hint to you.
Why do you bother to even comment on these things? Your comments are so often off the wall.