If only Apple didn't have such a large number of flitty individual shareholders, and had more institutional investors that are likely to hold without fear through these fluctuations, maybe it wouldn't have been so bad.
Actually, individuals wouldn't move the stock like that. What you saw was some major sell-offs by big investors/traders who want a company with higher growth rates (even though the revenue and profit numbers will be much lower).
Not if you consider the fact that roughly 1,000,000 Macs were missing from Apple's earnings this past quarter.
Exactly. In response to a question related to that, Oppenheimer attributed approximately 700,000 of that shortfall to lack of iMac availability (at least, in the way that I interpreted that part of the conf call).
My 2009 Quad i7 iMac is still humming along. I was seriously contemplating buying this new one, but decided to hold off till Haswell comes out. They are beautiful machines!
I put a Fusion Drive configuration in my late 2009 iMac 27 inch. Gave up the optical, put a 2.5 inch HDD in a tray for that slot and switched the existing 3.5 HDD for an SSD. Too bad it's only SATA2. I only get 200MB/s read times...
Nice find! Thank you. I had COMPLETELY forgotten about that!
I think I am going to print that out and paste in on my wall, to remind myself how I stuck through that, and how fantastically well that paid off for me as a long term investor!
Not if you consider the fact that roughly 1,000,000 Macs were missing from Apple's earnings this past quarter. That would've given Apple roughly $1.5 billion more of sales, and perhaps $500 million more profit in the quarter. That would be another 3% of revenue, and another approximately 5% profit. Numbers like that would have sure look much better then the numbers that Apple reported. Those numbers work bad, but clearly they were disappointing for a lot of existing shareholders who sold their stock as a result.
If only Apple didn't have such a large number of flitty individual shareholders, and had more institutional investors that are likely to hold without fear through these fluctuations, maybe it wouldn't have been so bad.
Exactly. That's the silver lining in the stock drop. "Flitty" shareholders are being weeded out. Now Apple has bottomed out, but this bottom will be much more solid. As the share price rises, slowly perhaps, bad news won't have near the effect that it has had of late.
That's good. Hopefully next time Apple tries to do a massive upgrade of nearly all of its product lines, it will remember to look at a calendar before it does so so it doesn't totally blow the important Christmas shopping season. Then again, I have my doubts that Tim Cook will be the CEO by then. You don't just lose a third of the company's value on your watch, because of choices that you made poorly, and survive it.
Uh huh. Best run company in the world and they are going to get rid of the CEO. That's just a ridiculous statement. What you just said is "Apple continues to release products with such high demand that they can't build them fast enough, and it released too many of them at once in the biggest demand season of the year. Let's fire the person who decided to do that." Your whole premise is laughable.
Apple doesn't give a crap about these movements in its stock. It doesn't need them for capital investment. And no big shareholder is going to think there's someone else better to run the company.
That's good. Hopefully next time Apple tries to do a massive upgrade of nearly all of its product lines, it will remember to look at a calendar before it does so so it doesn't totally blow the important Christmas shopping season. Then again, I have my doubts that Tim Cook will be the CEO by then. You don't just lose a third of the company's value on your watch, because of choices that you made poorly, and survive it.
Here's where your crankiness gets you in trouble. You have zero knowledge of what was behind the supply constraints, I would guess. Was it the display? Was it the friction-stir welding? Something else, or a combination? Did Cook gamble on Ive in Mansfield's absence?
Then there's the effect of the herd mentality that you're always criticizing. How much of the loss in value is media panic, or mass hysteric idiocy, as who-was-it calling it yesterday?
Even Steve was shocked by the chihuahua pack during the fake antenna crisis.
Edit: It was alfiejr. Mass hysteric idiocy. Priceless. Also, I should say I find your angle on the Market and investment interesting, but I have no idea if you're generally right.
Wrong. Institutions have ALWAYS held massive amounts of AAPL (64% at last count). I'm not aware of any evidence that they've been holding and that private investors are the ones selling. Your evidence is.......?
That you don't get to HIGH institutional ownership by having institutions sell their holdings.
None of us can possibly know who is buying and selling on any individual day. The only piece of evidence that we have that indicates who is buying it who is selling in the long-term is the institutional ownership percentage. Because that's numbers high that means over the long-term, institutions are buying and individuals are selling. It's self-evident.
People here don't want to believe it, because they like to have a bogeyman to blame for this.
But you can lose more than 1/2 and can survive it? Where is the logic in that?
If you had said back in 2008 that you had doubt Steve Jobs would be CEO in 2012 you'd have been right... just for the wrong reasons.
Everyone knows the 2008 crash was due the market tanking, not AAPL. All stocks took a massive hit back then, so no one blamed Jobs. It's a much, much different situation now, where a large part of the nosedive is attributed directly to Cook's leadership. If he wants to turn things around, he needs to show that 2013 is the year of innovation, and not litigation. If he put half as much energy into launching into new markets like TV as he does into suing Samsung and others, no one would doubt him.
Here's where your crankiness gets you in trouble. You have zero knowledge of what was behind the supply constraints, I would guess. Was it the display? Was it the friction-stir welding? Something else, or a combination? Did Cook gamble on Ive in Mansfield's absence?
Then there's the effect of the herd mentality that you're always criticizing. How much of the loss in value is media panic, or mass hysteric idiocy, as who-was-it calling it yesterday?
Even Steve was shocked by the chihuahua pack during the fake antenna crisis.
Edit: It was alfiejr. Mass hysteric idiocy. Priceless. Also, I should say I find your angle on the Market and investment interesting, but I have no idea if you're generally right.
I can understand any of the production constraints, except Apple was constrained on the iPhone 4, a two year old phone. I wouldn't mind knowing why, but there is no excuse for this.
"Irrelevant. Global financial crisis. Everyone had that happen."
Just getting ahead of the answers.
Yes, but soon thereafter, the market kept going sideways through much of 2009 while AAPL went back up quite substantially: between the start of the market really tanking in Sep 2008 and the end of 2009, the S&P500 had a return of -20%, while AAPL had +11%.
(Aaargh.... why am I not able to get the chart up!? I give up...)
That's good. Hopefully next time Apple tries to do a massive upgrade of nearly all of its product lines, it will remember to look at a calendar before it does so so it doesn't totally blow the important Christmas shopping season. Then again, I have my doubts that Tim Cook will be the CEO by then. You don't just lose a third of the company's value on your watch, because of choices that you made poorly, and survive it.
I'm curious what do you think the stock will do if Tim is shown the door? And who would take his place? Serious questions.
Hopefully they'll announce a new Thunderbolt display now that they have this figured out
Assuming the delays are because of the display my guess is that the ATD display numbers are lower and not as bursty as a new iMac being announced so that even if the 27" iMacs are still in short order they will still announce and release them along with the new Mac Pro(s) (and new AirPort routers). I think the profit margins.
Comments
But you can lose more than 1/2 and can survive it? Where is the logic in that?
If you had said back in 2008 that you had doubt Steve Jobs would be CEO in 2012 you'd have been right... just for the wrong reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj
If only Apple didn't have such a large number of flitty individual shareholders, and had more institutional investors that are likely to hold without fear through these fluctuations, maybe it wouldn't have been so bad.
Actually, individuals wouldn't move the stock like that. What you saw was some major sell-offs by big investors/traders who want a company with higher growth rates (even though the revenue and profit numbers will be much lower).
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj
Not if you consider the fact that roughly 1,000,000 Macs were missing from Apple's earnings this past quarter.
Exactly. In response to a question related to that, Oppenheimer attributed approximately 700,000 of that shortfall to lack of iMac availability (at least, in the way that I interpreted that part of the conf call).
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
My 2009 Quad i7 iMac is still humming along. I was seriously contemplating buying this new one, but decided to hold off till Haswell comes out. They are beautiful machines!
I put a Fusion Drive configuration in my late 2009 iMac 27 inch. Gave up the optical, put a 2.5 inch HDD in a tray for that slot and switched the existing 3.5 HDD for an SSD. Too bad it's only SATA2. I only get 200MB/s read times...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Nice find! Thank you. I had COMPLETELY forgotten about that!
I think I am going to print that out and paste in on my wall, to remind myself how I stuck through that, and how fantastically well that paid off for me as a long term investor!
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj
Not if you consider the fact that roughly 1,000,000 Macs were missing from Apple's earnings this past quarter. That would've given Apple roughly $1.5 billion more of sales, and perhaps $500 million more profit in the quarter. That would be another 3% of revenue, and another approximately 5% profit. Numbers like that would have sure look much better then the numbers that Apple reported. Those numbers work bad, but clearly they were disappointing for a lot of existing shareholders who sold their stock as a result.
If only Apple didn't have such a large number of flitty individual shareholders, and had more institutional investors that are likely to hold without fear through these fluctuations, maybe it wouldn't have been so bad.
Exactly. That's the silver lining in the stock drop. "Flitty" shareholders are being weeded out. Now Apple has bottomed out, but this bottom will be much more solid. As the share price rises, slowly perhaps, bad news won't have near the effect that it has had of late.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj
That's good. Hopefully next time Apple tries to do a massive upgrade of nearly all of its product lines, it will remember to look at a calendar before it does so so it doesn't totally blow the important Christmas shopping season. Then again, I have my doubts that Tim Cook will be the CEO by then. You don't just lose a third of the company's value on your watch, because of choices that you made poorly, and survive it.
Uh huh. Best run company in the world and they are going to get rid of the CEO. That's just a ridiculous statement. What you just said is "Apple continues to release products with such high demand that they can't build them fast enough, and it released too many of them at once in the biggest demand season of the year. Let's fire the person who decided to do that." Your whole premise is laughable.
Apple doesn't give a crap about these movements in its stock. It doesn't need them for capital investment. And no big shareholder is going to think there's someone else better to run the company.
Here's where your crankiness gets you in trouble. You have zero knowledge of what was behind the supply constraints, I would guess. Was it the display? Was it the friction-stir welding? Something else, or a combination? Did Cook gamble on Ive in Mansfield's absence?
Then there's the effect of the herd mentality that you're always criticizing. How much of the loss in value is media panic, or mass hysteric idiocy, as who-was-it calling it yesterday?
Even Steve was shocked by the chihuahua pack during the fake antenna crisis.
Edit: It was alfiejr. Mass hysteric idiocy. Priceless. Also, I should say I find your angle on the Market and investment interesting, but I have no idea if you're generally right.
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
But you can lose more than 1/2 and can survive it? Where is the logic in that?
If you had said back in 2008 that you had doubt Steve Jobs would be CEO in 2012 you'd have been right... just for the wrong reasons.
"Irrelevant. Global financial crisis. Everyone had that happen."
Just getting ahead of the answers.
That you don't get to HIGH institutional ownership by having institutions sell their holdings.
None of us can possibly know who is buying and selling on any individual day. The only piece of evidence that we have that indicates who is buying it who is selling in the long-term is the institutional ownership percentage. Because that's numbers high that means over the long-term, institutions are buying and individuals are selling. It's self-evident.
People here don't want to believe it, because they like to have a bogeyman to blame for this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
HUH. HOW INTERESTING. THIS HAPPENED JUST AFTER PEOPLE MADE A CUBIC FECAL KILOMETER OF MONEY ON THE DUMPING OF APPLE STOCK.
Shorting stock is only profitable if a FEW people do it, Skil. Once all the kids start doing it, it's no longer cool.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
But you can lose more than 1/2 and can survive it? Where is the logic in that?
If you had said back in 2008 that you had doubt Steve Jobs would be CEO in 2012 you'd have been right... just for the wrong reasons.
Everyone knows the 2008 crash was due the market tanking, not AAPL. All stocks took a massive hit back then, so no one blamed Jobs. It's a much, much different situation now, where a large part of the nosedive is attributed directly to Cook's leadership. If he wants to turn things around, he needs to show that 2013 is the year of innovation, and not litigation. If he put half as much energy into launching into new markets like TV as he does into suing Samsung and others, no one would doubt him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
Here's where your crankiness gets you in trouble. You have zero knowledge of what was behind the supply constraints, I would guess. Was it the display? Was it the friction-stir welding? Something else, or a combination? Did Cook gamble on Ive in Mansfield's absence?
Then there's the effect of the herd mentality that you're always criticizing. How much of the loss in value is media panic, or mass hysteric idiocy, as who-was-it calling it yesterday?
Even Steve was shocked by the chihuahua pack during the fake antenna crisis.
Edit: It was alfiejr. Mass hysteric idiocy. Priceless. Also, I should say I find your angle on the Market and investment interesting, but I have no idea if you're generally right.
I can understand any of the production constraints, except Apple was constrained on the iPhone 4, a two year old phone. I wouldn't mind knowing why, but there is no excuse for this.
(Deleted. Trying again, below.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
"Irrelevant. Global financial crisis. Everyone had that happen."
Just getting ahead of the answers.
Yes, but soon thereafter, the market kept going sideways through much of 2009 while AAPL went back up quite substantially: between the start of the market really tanking in Sep 2008 and the end of 2009, the S&P500 had a return of -20%, while AAPL had +11%.
(Aaargh.... why am I not able to get the chart up!? I give up...)
Hope it gets here soon.
I'm curious what do you think the stock will do if Tim is shown the door? And who would take his place? Serious questions.
Hopefully they'll announce a new Thunderbolt display now that they have this figured out
Assuming the delays are because of the display my guess is that the ATD display numbers are lower and not as bursty as a new iMac being announced so that even if the 27" iMacs are still in short order they will still announce and release them along with the new Mac Pro(s) (and new AirPort routers). I think the profit margins.