Well, they ARE selling fewer phones and have to discount them, as evidenced by them guiding both top and bottom line down. Whether it is the screen size, I cannot say, but something is not going so hot.
Apple doesn't NEED to do anything. The same analysts probably said Apple needed to sell a Netbook.
The reason why they are analysts is because they failed at running businesses.
Agreed. The other issue is the idea that the share price is the only thing that matters. IMHO Apple should just ignore Wall Street and keep doing what they are doing, running an amazing company making amazing products everyone loves. The increase in dividends rewards those that stick with AAPL and for most of us long term investors our shares are still way up never mind the drop in value. Wall Street is all about gambling, making money of what has become nothing more than a game of roulette with AAPL. They have zero interest in Apple or Apple's products per se, only if they can buy and sell amidst the FUD to their advantage.
I'm not sure how you could backup that statement given the late six months. Adding no new product releases for at least another 4-5 months. I would say anantksundaram nailed it, it's going to be a long hard summer for AAPL shareholders.
I don't know obviously but I'd hazard a guess many that are long time share holders bought when APPL was way lower than it is now. I'd also suspect much of the losses in the last few months went to those that were late to the game and riding the excitement as they same people probably did with flipping houses, the dot com boom and their ancestors did with the gold rush (I jest on the latter). That's not to say many long term investors didn't also dabbled later on too I know I did but I'd be interested to know the break down of current share holders showing the longevity of their holdings.
I love the "f Wall Street" comments aka the shareholders aka the owners. Tomorrow when you go to work, find the owner and spill those same beans on him or her, and see how good that does you.
Why?
Some companies need the funds selling shares can bring in.
Doesn't matter. If the owner wants to run their company into the ground... they can.
The problem there is that "Wall Street" isn't necessarily the ultimate owner but managers. I think it's highly unwise to set up or consider any large organization as a direct democracy, the model generally weakens as it scales up in size.
I love the "f Wall Street" comments aka the shareholders aka the owners. Tomorrow when you go to work, find the owner and spill those same beans on him or her, and see how good that does you.
Actual owners like the ones you are referring to are most likely majority owners so they would have the right to be disappointed if their company was doing badly and they'd probably risk their own money to save their company and turn it around. When we are talking about stockholders, we are talking about a group of people who share 940 million shares. The largest institutional shareholder in AAPL (Vanguard) owns less than 5% of Apple.
In no way is Vanguard or any other stockholder in AAPL equivalent to a majority owner of a company. The top 10 institutions make up about 25% so if they had a consensus on an issue then it's worth listening to but this isn't who you hear complaining. It's the people with far smaller stockholdings where the difference can mean retiring or not and those people go around proclaiming ownership of Apple while most likely holding <$100k i.e <250 shares out of 940 million i.e 0.000027% ownership. That would be like me sending a ball hair to you in the mail and then you claiming you own me and can tell me what to do.
At every earnings conference call, Tim Cook should get up and say 'Apple has been struggling to fight against a dire economy caused by Wall Street. Everyone in the world is disappointed by the performance of Wall Street that led to this but Apple is managing to counter the damage caused. Hopefully in future the government can regulate them more closely so this won't happen again'. Then he should go on to dictate what Wall Street needs to be doing in order to operate better (including a change of management).
I love the "f Wall Street" comments aka the shareholders aka the owners. Tomorrow when you go to work, find the owner and spill those same beans on him or her, and see how good that does you.
Notwithstanding her credentials, her view is very much in the minority when it comes to mainstream thinking in corporate governance. She has been on this bandwagon for many years, and hasn't persuaded too many reforms (if any at all).
We get angry when people say things we don't want to hear. Just remember the guy working on Wall Street is an investor like the rest of us, but with a lot more cash to work with and a lot more to lose (of other people's money). I think their reputation took a big hit and they're all a bit bitter because they had price targets around $1000 a few months ago and now the stock is hovering at just above $400.:no: When a pack of elephants is stampeding to a certain place, no one analyst can change its trajectory; they could make the pack move sideways or reverse course a bit with their crazy talk, but the herd will continue in its original direction. Even that colossal waste of $100 billion in stock buy-back did not move the stock up much. If you draw an arrow along the AAPL price chart of the last 6 months, it's not hard to see where this herd is heading. My price target is $320. Like the great Wayne Gretzky said, play where you think the puck is going to be, not where it is now (or how cheap you think AAPL is). The only entity that can change the price of AAPL is Apple itself when it releases a product that makes our jaws drop. But that's not 'til September as TC said. So until you see the pack of elephants reverse course, follow the pack or you'll get stomped.
I think their reputation took a big hit and they're all a bit bitter because they had price targets around $1000 a few months ago and now the stock is hovering at just above $400.
I think that's probably right. The people making the wild projections likely got a lot of criticism for that and they do what they always do and look for a scapegoat - e.g 'it wasn't my fault Apple didn't perform well enough to meet my guessed price projections'. They never take accountability for anything, they take all the risks and let someone else take the blame and clean up after them when it all goes wrong.
Considering this is the kind of dialogue coming out of the market sector, those telling Wall Street where to go have a pretty strong case.
Yep, we refer to those kinds of suppositions as "false narratives". Questions posed that "frame" a topic in a shallow and often meaningless or misleading way.
"Is Apple A or B?" Hardware OR software? Are they joking? Blind? Just plain stupid? Of course Apple is far more than that simple A or B… they are a hardware, software, services AND "imagineering" company , and more! But people WILL start asking, "Well? Which are they?" By simply implying they've got an identity crisis, the negative seed is planted, move on…
What I'm seeing the past couple of years is a (well funded) continuous, negative-leaning drone, and that points to a "long-con" style PR campaign… whisper it, whisper it, repeat something often enough, it becomes accepted in the 'general mindset' as fact.
Samsung (and possibly others like Microsoft) is most certainly engaged in steady and continuous negative paid-PR, using social networks and comment boards like this one. That together with paid-PR "articles" in trade channels… I know how to spot them generally, in part because I've worked in the brand mar-com industry for 15 years give or take… It only takes a few minutes on the comment boards at places like Yahoo Finance to see it. Check it out sometime. Click through ANY Apple-related article to the comments. There they are, a steady hum, with the same talking points rolled out over and over again… it's like watching a political whisper campaign… nasty stuff, that.
Worse is when you have the professional "analysts" and "journalists" (who are as often as not doing a paid-PR "piece" -- the most insidious form of anti-advertising), sitting face to face on camera discussing Apple and just spewing the most twisted "spun/framed" crap about the company, little actually having anything to do with the company fundamentals OR the numbers, but the negative timbre is what counts… little seeds of FUD sprinkled incessantly... Personally, I think it should be illegal, but what can you do?
So, yeah, as far as I'm concerned, I ignore those 'pundits', and stick with Apple's guidance for fundamentals, sniff out the general "sentiment" to determine when to buy and sell for short trades, but over the long haul, I'm sticking with Apple. They are a model company in so many ways, and deserve far more praise than they're getting. They're rocking the market still, while managing so much transition (beginning with the loss of their sensei, Mr. Jobs)… I have faith they'll do fine over the coming years...
To me, the market these days is more noise than value. I'm banking on the company itself.
You actually do, but corporate law is complicated. You are correct however that directors' first priority is the survival and health of the corporation, and not the shareholders.
Again we are having trouble with the four seasons of the years. Unless you don't believe Tim Cook.
I'm not sure why an annual update at a single time of year is really a big deal. The consumer electronics industry does it a lot with TV and other home entertainment devices. Automobiles. Broadcast equipment. Industrial machinery. Clothing. I'm sure there's a lot more examples.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
Well, they ARE selling fewer phones and have to discount them, as evidenced by them guiding both top and bottom line down. Whether it is the screen size, I cannot say, but something is not going so hot.
Weren't the iPhone sales revenue up last quarter?
Quote:
"Apple has an Identity Crisis: Is It a Hardware or a Software Firm?"
Considering this is the kind of dialogue coming out of the market sector, those telling Wall Street where to go have a pretty strong case.
Agreed. The other issue is the idea that the share price is the only thing that matters. IMHO Apple should just ignore Wall Street and keep doing what they are doing, running an amazing company making amazing products everyone loves. The increase in dividends rewards those that stick with AAPL and for most of us long term investors our shares are still way up never mind the drop in value. Wall Street is all about gambling, making money of what has become nothing more than a game of roulette with AAPL. They have zero interest in Apple or Apple's products per se, only if they can buy and sell amidst the FUD to their advantage.
I don't know obviously but I'd hazard a guess many that are long time share holders bought when APPL was way lower than it is now. I'd also suspect much of the losses in the last few months went to those that were late to the game and riding the excitement as they same people probably did with flipping houses, the dot com boom and their ancestors did with the gold rush (I jest on the latter). That's not to say many long term investors didn't also dabbled later on too I know I did but I'd be interested to know the break down of current share holders showing the longevity of their holdings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCProfessor
I love the "f Wall Street" comments aka the shareholders aka the owners. Tomorrow when you go to work, find the owner and spill those same beans on him or her, and see how good that does you.
Why?
Some companies need the funds selling shares can bring in.
Apple isn't one of them.
The problem there is that "Wall Street" isn't necessarily the ultimate owner but managers. I think it's highly unwise to set up or consider any large organization as a direct democracy, the model generally weakens as it scales up in size.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayz
You should read this:
http://www.directorship.com/stout-shareholders-as-owners/
As a shareholder you do not 'own' the company.
51% Gekko, 51%
Actual owners like the ones you are referring to are most likely majority owners so they would have the right to be disappointed if their company was doing badly and they'd probably risk their own money to save their company and turn it around. When we are talking about stockholders, we are talking about a group of people who share 940 million shares. The largest institutional shareholder in AAPL (Vanguard) owns less than 5% of Apple.
In no way is Vanguard or any other stockholder in AAPL equivalent to a majority owner of a company. The top 10 institutions make up about 25% so if they had a consensus on an issue then it's worth listening to but this isn't who you hear complaining. It's the people with far smaller stockholdings where the difference can mean retiring or not and those people go around proclaiming ownership of Apple while most likely holding <$100k i.e <250 shares out of 940 million i.e 0.000027% ownership. That would be like me sending a ball hair to you in the mail and then you claiming you own me and can tell me what to do.
At every earnings conference call, Tim Cook should get up and say 'Apple has been struggling to fight against a dire economy caused by Wall Street. Everyone in the world is disappointed by the performance of Wall Street that led to this but Apple is managing to counter the damage caused. Hopefully in future the government can regulate them more closely so this won't happen again'. Then he should go on to dictate what Wall Street needs to be doing in order to operate better (including a change of management).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayz
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCProfessor
I love the "f Wall Street" comments aka the shareholders aka the owners. Tomorrow when you go to work, find the owner and spill those same beans on him or her, and see how good that does you.
You should read this:
http://www.directorship.com/stout-shareholders-as-owners/
As a shareholder you do not 'own' the company.
Notwithstanding her credentials, her view is very much in the minority when it comes to mainstream thinking in corporate governance. She has been on this bandwagon for many years, and hasn't persuaded too many reforms (if any at all).
When a pack of elephants is stampeding to a certain place, no one analyst can change its trajectory; they could make the pack move sideways or reverse course a bit with their crazy talk, but the herd will continue in its original direction. Even that colossal waste of $100 billion in stock buy-back did not move the stock up much. If you draw an arrow along the AAPL price chart of the last 6 months, it's not hard to see where this herd is heading. My price target is $320.
Like the great Wayne Gretzky said, play where you think the puck is going to be, not where it is now (or how cheap you think AAPL is). The only entity that can change the price of AAPL is Apple itself when it releases a product that makes our jaws drop. But that's not 'til September as TC said. So until you see the pack of elephants reverse course, follow the pack or you'll get stomped.
I think that's probably right. The people making the wild projections likely got a lot of criticism for that and they do what they always do and look for a scapegoat - e.g 'it wasn't my fault Apple didn't perform well enough to meet my guessed price projections'. They never take accountability for anything, they take all the risks and let someone else take the blame and clean up after them when it all goes wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater
Again we are having trouble with the four seasons of the years. Unless you don't believe Tim Cook.
I didn't hear Cook say "We aren't announcing, releasing or updating anything at all until the fall…" Did you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
That, or laugh their heads off. We will see in a few years.
Nothing funnier than a self-fulfilling prophecy, eh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sennen
Considering this is the kind of dialogue coming out of the market sector, those telling Wall Street where to go have a pretty strong case.
Yep, we refer to those kinds of suppositions as "false narratives". Questions posed that "frame" a topic in a shallow and often meaningless or misleading way.
"Is Apple A or B?" Hardware OR software? Are they joking? Blind? Just plain stupid? Of course Apple is far more than that simple A or B… they are a hardware, software, services AND "imagineering" company , and more! But people WILL start asking, "Well? Which are they?" By simply implying they've got an identity crisis, the negative seed is planted, move on…
What I'm seeing the past couple of years is a (well funded) continuous, negative-leaning drone, and that points to a "long-con" style PR campaign… whisper it, whisper it, repeat something often enough, it becomes accepted in the 'general mindset' as fact.
Samsung (and possibly others like Microsoft) is most certainly engaged in steady and continuous negative paid-PR, using social networks and comment boards like this one. That together with paid-PR "articles" in trade channels… I know how to spot them generally, in part because I've worked in the brand mar-com industry for 15 years give or take… It only takes a few minutes on the comment boards at places like Yahoo Finance to see it. Check it out sometime. Click through ANY Apple-related article to the comments. There they are, a steady hum, with the same talking points rolled out over and over again… it's like watching a political whisper campaign… nasty stuff, that.
Worse is when you have the professional "analysts" and "journalists" (who are as often as not doing a paid-PR "piece" -- the most insidious form of anti-advertising), sitting face to face on camera discussing Apple and just spewing the most twisted "spun/framed" crap about the company, little actually having anything to do with the company fundamentals OR the numbers, but the negative timbre is what counts… little seeds of FUD sprinkled incessantly... Personally, I think it should be illegal, but what can you do?
So, yeah, as far as I'm concerned, I ignore those 'pundits', and stick with Apple's guidance for fundamentals, sniff out the general "sentiment" to determine when to buy and sell for short trades, but over the long haul, I'm sticking with Apple. They are a model company in so many ways, and deserve far more praise than they're getting. They're rocking the market still, while managing so much transition (beginning with the loss of their sensei, Mr. Jobs)… I have faith they'll do fine over the coming years...
To me, the market these days is more noise than value. I'm banking on the company itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayz
You should read this:
http://www.directorship.com/stout-shareholders-as-owners/
As a shareholder you do not 'own' the company.
You actually do, but corporate law is complicated. You are correct however that directors' first priority is the survival and health of the corporation, and not the shareholders.
I'm not sure why an annual update at a single time of year is really a big deal. The consumer electronics industry does it a lot with TV and other home entertainment devices. Automobiles. Broadcast equipment. Industrial machinery. Clothing. I'm sure there's a lot more examples.