Yeah, after the collapse of the dollar, euro, US economy, Greece.... all of which should have happened already, according to your many dire past predictions.
And yet I’m just sitting here laughing. Anyone stupid enough to think this delusion can continue forever deserves everything that will happen to them when it all comes down.
Wall Street doesn't work in the way many in this thread assume it would.
It's about making money from share fluctuations (both up and down), in a way it's like gambling. Meaning a company that is both very well known and with a mostly predictable revenue is not the sort of company that is most appealing.
Similarly this is why it's ideal for Apple to buy back shares. Apple can raise capital from sales and bonds, and doesn't need Wall Street.
Jim CramerVerified account ?@jimcramer 28m28 minutes ago I know many of you are scratching your heads about why $AAPL isn't soaring. All I can tell you is that this is an amazing q. Own don't trade
I know many of you are scratching your heads about why $AAPL isn't soaring. All I can tell you is holy crap guys pay more attention is this your first day on the job or something
Apple is nearly a one trick pony. 60% or 70% of income is derived from one product. Google is into many items that benefit consumers at no or very little cost. Not certain how you determine the extra $60 billion in income as making Apple more diversified.
Guess this thread is bringing the trolls out. You have 5 posts on this forum, and they all shit on Apple and side against them at every opportunity. Also, your post makes zero sense, and you completely missed the point. Who cares how many things Google does? The important thing is where their profits come from, and that isn't very diversified (ie. advertising). Meanwhile, Apple makes more money from non iPhone stuff than everything Google does combined, how the **** is that so difficult to understand?
Oh, and the iPhone isn't "one trick". It is a product that is the sum of decades of development, philosophies, and is made up of hardware, software, and an ecosystem that can't be duplicated.
Apple is nearly a one trick pony. 60% or 70% of income is derived from one product. Google is into many items that benefit consumers at no or very little cost. Not certain how you determine the extra $60 billion in income as making Apple more diversified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
Guess this thread is bringing the trolls out. You have 5 posts on this forum, and they all shit on Apple and side against them at every opportunity. Also, your post makes zero sense, and you completely missed the point. Who cares how many things Google does? The important thing is where their profits come from, and that isn't very diversified (ie. advertising). Meanwhile, Apple makes more money from non iPhone stuff than everything Google does combined, how the **** is that so difficult to understand?
Oh, and the iPhone isn't "one trick". It is a product that is the sum of decades of development, philosophies, and is made up of hardware, software, and an ecosystem that can't be duplicated.
This is that same loser that posts constantly on BGR. So stupid to even use the same username.
Only four companies in the world profit over $20 Billion per year. Only two companies in the world profit over $30 Billion per year. Apple is in the number one spot.
Guess this thread is bringing the trolls out. You have 5 posts on this forum, and they all shit on Apple and side against them at every opportunity. Also, your post makes zero sense, and you completely missed the point. Who cares how many things Google does? The important thing is where their profits come from, and that isn't very diversified (ie. advertising). Meanwhile, Apple makes more money from non iPhone stuff than everything Google does combined, how the **** is that so difficult to understand?
Oh, and the iPhone isn't "one trick". It is a product that is the sum of decades of development, philosophies, and is made up of hardware, software, and an ecosystem that can't be duplicated.
There is nothing in my posts that is not factual. I never said that Apple don't make gobs of money from other items. I also never said "iPhone" was a one trick pony, I said "Apple" is nearly a one trick pony.
I still have trouble understanding the why, it is either Analyst (mostly Americans ) do not understand China ( Aren't they suppose to be the elite ), or they purposely mislead the public. China's growth is slowing. But that doesn't mean it is not growing. There are some industry in China growing even faster then before with consumer spending on entertainments. Basically the middle class are still growing.
And it is likely in 4 - 5 years time China will be Apple's biggest market. Once they have build their solid foundation they will need to focus on other potential market like India and Brazil.
People are missing the importance of Enterprise! When was the last time you see Enterprise switching to a completely different vendor and system? NONE. Never. or very rarely do unless the system is totally useless. This isn't about Apple's Ecosystem stickiness or customer Loyalty. It is the cost of doing so and the time invested in. It is this Mobile First that completely changed the market dynamics now Enterprise has to design their system with Mobile first in Mind. Once they changed to an Apple product, wow this is potentially 50B yearly revenue for the next decade and significantly improves Apple's bottom line. I can see a lot of Fortune 500 companies moving to Apple, some of these conglomerate......
If Apple had more cash in hand, not overseas I guess they would have bought back a lot more shares.
Wall Street doesn't work in the way many in this thread assume it would.
It's about making money from share fluctuations (both up and down), in a way it's like gambling. Meaning a company that is both very well known and with a mostly predictable revenue is not the sort of company that is most appealing.
Similarly this is why it's ideal for Apple to buy back shares. Apple can raise capital from sales and bonds, and doesn't need Wall Street.
Wall Street is deluded: they are like gambling but still claim they're actually about present value of future earning (that's what the stock price is about in theory....) , and that stocks reflects this future value because information is perfectly distributed and everyone can transact on it equally. Total bollocks of course.
It is this delusion that's outrageous, this claim of reflecting reality instead of just gambling addicts on a planetary scale just bouncing electronic bills around in their huge poker game, and then claiming these winning are somehow creating value for the poor saps without enough money (or any money) to play the game in a fair way. You know, good ol' trickle down...
So, yes, I 100% understand "the game" those leeches play.
Look while Apple's PE is relatively low there isn't a conspiracy to harm the stock price if guidance is low.
The reason Cook was asked about Q2 (March) is because they wanted him to say he was anticipating greater growth because of lower forex issues, but Apple never forecast that far ahead.
In the absence of such reassurance the analysts assume that the 4% growth will be the yearly growth rate, and that's a rate close to a y-o-y decline. Which might happen. In any case they are anticipating low to no growth in calendar 2016
So, basically, analysts are half assing it as usual, and will undoubtably be wrong, again with NO CONSEQUENCES. Check this post in a year will you.
The guy on the call who discounted the December quarter and was fretting about March is the same guy who was on CNBC yesterday saying Apple's best days were behind it. CNBC referred to him as "the top hardware IT analyst". I loved it when Cook shot him down saying he didn't agree with anything this guy said about the December quarter.
Apple is doing well financially, but from a real business point of view (as in practical product manufacturing and user adoption) there are some concerns, including the misses with 16GB iPhones, new AppleTVs without 4k support, iMacs with 5400rpm drives, neutering the Mac mini, no updates to MacPro in years (again), no dedicated GPUs in MacBook Pros (except a single model at the highest end), etc.
Wall street doesn't give a shit about these product features that you feel are relevant to growth; they aren't affecting sales in any significant way.
What Wall Street cares about is the fact that the smartphone market that Apple dominates in profit will eventually hit a wall, and it will.
Just not tomorrow, which is how Wall Street reacts after every quarter; Apple is doomed because to the law of big numbers, market saturation, and commoditization.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
My own spin is that Institutional buyers have absorbed as much Apple stock as they can into their portfolios; they believe that too heavy a weight of Apple stock is high risk, and frankly, the weight of Apple literally distorts the whole market. What's left in the market is either held long by individuals, or is easily manipulated for the benefit of traders.
Whatever the case, the situation isn't going to change.
Comments
And yet I’m just sitting here laughing. Anyone stupid enough to think this delusion can continue forever deserves everything that will happen to them when it all comes down.
Enjoy the ride, and remember: fiat is money!
Wall Street doesn't work in the way many in this thread assume it would.
It's about making money from share fluctuations (both up and down), in a way it's like gambling. Meaning a company that is both very well known and with a mostly predictable revenue is not the sort of company that is most appealing.
Similarly this is why it's ideal for Apple to buy back shares. Apple can raise capital from sales and bonds, and doesn't need Wall Street.
Jim CramerVerified account ?@jimcramer 28m28 minutes ago
I know many of you are scratching your heads about why $AAPL isn't soaring. All I can tell you is that this is an amazing q. Own don't trade
That’s more than 140 characters, though.
Apple is nearly a one trick pony. 60% or 70% of income is derived from one product. Google is into many items that benefit consumers at no or very little cost. Not certain how you determine the extra $60 billion in income as making Apple more diversified.
Guess this thread is bringing the trolls out. You have 5 posts on this forum, and they all shit on Apple and side against them at every opportunity. Also, your post makes zero sense, and you completely missed the point. Who cares how many things Google does? The important thing is where their profits come from, and that isn't very diversified (ie. advertising). Meanwhile, Apple makes more money from non iPhone stuff than everything Google does combined, how the **** is that so difficult to understand?
Oh, and the iPhone isn't "one trick". It is a product that is the sum of decades of development, philosophies, and is made up of hardware, software, and an ecosystem that can't be duplicated.
Apple TV ships this week. iPad Pro in late November.
Apple is nearly a one trick pony. 60% or 70% of income is derived from one product. Google is into many items that benefit consumers at no or very little cost. Not certain how you determine the extra $60 billion in income as making Apple more diversified.
Guess this thread is bringing the trolls out. You have 5 posts on this forum, and they all shit on Apple and side against them at every opportunity. Also, your post makes zero sense, and you completely missed the point. Who cares how many things Google does? The important thing is where their profits come from, and that isn't very diversified (ie. advertising). Meanwhile, Apple makes more money from non iPhone stuff than everything Google does combined, how the **** is that so difficult to understand?
Oh, and the iPhone isn't "one trick". It is a product that is the sum of decades of development, philosophies, and is made up of hardware, software, and an ecosystem that can't be duplicated.
This is that same loser that posts constantly on BGR. So stupid to even use the same username.
Only four companies in the world profit over $20 Billion per year. Only two companies in the world profit over $30 Billion per year. Apple is in the number one spot.
There is nothing in my posts that is not factual. I never said that Apple don't make gobs of money from other items. I also never said "iPhone" was a one trick pony, I said "Apple" is nearly a one trick pony.
I still have trouble understanding the why, it is either Analyst (mostly Americans ) do not understand China ( Aren't they suppose to be the elite ), or they purposely mislead the public. China's growth is slowing. But that doesn't mean it is not growing. There are some industry in China growing even faster then before with consumer spending on entertainments. Basically the middle class are still growing.
And it is likely in 4 - 5 years time China will be Apple's biggest market. Once they have build their solid foundation they will need to focus on other potential market like India and Brazil.
People are missing the importance of Enterprise! When was the last time you see Enterprise switching to a completely different vendor and system? NONE. Never. or very rarely do unless the system is totally useless. This isn't about Apple's Ecosystem stickiness or customer Loyalty. It is the cost of doing so and the time invested in. It is this Mobile First that completely changed the market dynamics now Enterprise has to design their system with Mobile first in Mind. Once they changed to an Apple product, wow this is potentially 50B yearly revenue for the next decade and significantly improves Apple's bottom line. I can see a lot of Fortune 500 companies moving to Apple, some of these conglomerate......
If Apple had more cash in hand, not overseas I guess they would have bought back a lot more shares.
Wall Street doesn't work in the way many in this thread assume it would.
It's about making money from share fluctuations (both up and down), in a way it's like gambling. Meaning a company that is both very well known and with a mostly predictable revenue is not the sort of company that is most appealing.
Similarly this is why it's ideal for Apple to buy back shares. Apple can raise capital from sales and bonds, and doesn't need Wall Street.
Wall Street is deluded: they are like gambling but still claim they're actually about present value of future earning (that's what the stock price is about in theory....) , and that stocks reflects this future value because information is perfectly distributed and everyone can transact on it equally. Total bollocks of course.
It is this delusion that's outrageous, this claim of reflecting reality instead of just gambling addicts on a planetary scale just bouncing electronic bills around in their huge poker game, and then claiming these winning are somehow creating value for the poor saps without enough money (or any money) to play the game in a fair way. You know, good ol' trickle down...
So, yes, I 100% understand "the game" those leeches play.
I don't think they see both AWS and Azure as monopolies, they see huge growth there.
Growth... In what? PRofit... No. This will become a razor margin business within 5 years. Mark my words.
I think analysists don't have a clue in the world. Simple as that.
Look while Apple's PE is relatively low there isn't a conspiracy to harm the stock price if guidance is low.
The reason Cook was asked about Q2 (March) is because they wanted him to say he was anticipating greater growth because of lower forex issues, but Apple never forecast that far ahead.
In the absence of such reassurance the analysts assume that the 4% growth will be the yearly growth rate, and that's a rate close to a y-o-y decline. Which might happen. In any case they are anticipating low to no growth in calendar 2016
So, basically, analysts are half assing it as usual, and will undoubtably be wrong, again with NO CONSEQUENCES. Check this post in a year will you.
Apple is doing well financially, but from a real business point of view (as in practical product manufacturing and user adoption) there are some concerns, including the misses with 16GB iPhones, new AppleTVs without 4k support, iMacs with 5400rpm drives, neutering the Mac mini, no updates to MacPro in years (again), no dedicated GPUs in MacBook Pros (except a single model at the highest end), etc.
Wall street doesn't give a shit about these product features that you feel are relevant to growth; they aren't affecting sales in any significant way.
What Wall Street cares about is the fact that the smartphone market that Apple dominates in profit will eventually hit a wall, and it will.
Just not tomorrow, which is how Wall Street reacts after every quarter; Apple is doomed because to the law of big numbers, market saturation, and commoditization.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
My own spin is that Institutional buyers have absorbed as much Apple stock as they can into their portfolios; they believe that too heavy a weight of Apple stock is high risk, and frankly, the weight of Apple literally distorts the whole market. What's left in the market is either held long by individuals, or is easily manipulated for the benefit of traders.
Whatever the case, the situation isn't going to change.