I'm not sure how Apple is a hedge against the rest of the market. Apple is probably more vulnerable than the average company to upheaval in the international order. If the US decides to attack one of the artificial islands built by China in the South China Sea, it will be very bad for everyone, but even worse for Apple. China is a lynchpin in the Apple supply chain. Apple's revenues could collapse if there were shots fired between the US and China.
Oh, come on. That's not going to happen. More likely that Apple will be materially harmed by the implementation of new trade barriers with China than any kind of military flare up.
I hope you're right, however this member of the US National Security Council says otherwise:
LOL. He said in 5 to 10 years. If Trump serves one term, the next president starts the war. If he serves two terms, again the next president starts the war. I think he was slyly jabbing at the Democrats.
Sog is hypocrisy incarnate. It's difficult to classify him as either a troll, whiner, or both. Popcorn is being eaten graciously, watching Sog getting his long-needed comeuppance.
It's funny watching him trying to backtrack his arrogance.
I'm not sure how Apple is a hedge against the rest of the market. Apple is probably more vulnerable than the average company to upheaval in the international order. If the US decides to attack one of the artificial islands built by China in the South China Sea, it will be very bad for everyone, but even worse for Apple. China is a lynchpin in the Apple supply chain. Apple's revenues could collapse if there were shots fired between the US and China.
I can assure you, everyone worldwide is f***ed if there is a U.S. attack on the Spratly Islands, the likely target, in the South China Sea. Think depression if it goes on for any length of time more than a few weeks. That's the artery for $5 trillion dollars worth of shipped product, including energy sources. In theory, Apple could survive on their cash piles overseas, assuming cash would have much of a value at that point.
While I do think that China will flex its military strength beyond occupying the Spratly Islands, it won't be until they have stabilized their own consumer economy, and even then, we might be looking at decades, and the U.S. would be foolish to attack at this time.
I'm not sure how Apple is a hedge against the rest of the market. Apple is probably more vulnerable than the average company to upheaval in the international order. If the US decides to attack one of the artificial islands built by China in the South China Sea, it will be very bad for everyone, but even worse for Apple. China is a lynchpin in the Apple supply chain. Apple's revenues could collapse if there were shots fired between the US and China.
Oh, come on. That's not going to happen. More likely that Apple will be materially harmed by the implementation of new trade barriers with China than any kind of military flare up.
I hope you're right, however this member of the US National Security Council says otherwise:
LOL. He said in 5 to 10 years. If Trump serves one term, the next president starts the war. If he serves two terms, again the next president starts the war. I think he was slyly jabbing at the Democrats.
On Wednesday, February 22, 2017, a financial analyst writing for MarketWatch designed to pen an article explaining why Warren Buffet should drop Apple for Qualcomm. I decided the analyst had nothing better to do than trash Apple while promoting Qualcomm. Two days later it was announced Buffet's investment had increased in value by $1.6 billion! Now the above is being announced. I am glad I was and am able to see that the analyst was way off base!!
Never believe what those tools write.
Do you own research and due diligence.
Apple will be a powerhouse for the foreseeable future. This stock will reach $150 this year and $200 in a couple of years.
Coming from the guy who has been shitting on Cook and Apple for a year, and demanding Cook be replaced. Is this when you were doing your "research" and "Due diligence". Is that when you "never believed the tools" that shrieked that Cook needs to go in order for the stock to recover? Isn't that what you were shrieking an preaching, day in and day out? And now you're too much of a coward to admit and acknowledge that, pretending like it never happened?
What a joke you are. Your lack of self-awareness is stunning.
Apple is still BY FAR my biggest holding. Obviously I believe in the company.
Its true I criticized Tim Cook last year. But it was with good reason. He clearly stated that China sales would continue to grow in 2016. It did not. That rocked the market. My opinion changed on Cook when:
1. He put huge emphasis on services. And finally giving shareholders a long-term target for growth = services will DOUBLE in 4 years 2. Airpods. Proof that Apple is still the BOSS in innovation 3. Closing deals in India 4. Leaks of a revolutionary iPhone 8 with smaller bezel and OLED
Those 4 points only happened in the last 3 months.
My opinion on Cook changed because he EXECUTED and made wonderful strategic moves. If you look at my post history you will see I praised Cook in 2014-2015.
My opinion on Cook as a CEO will change in the future based on what he does. But I guess you are such a fanboy that you will always support him 100% no matter what?
Trouble is, Apple didn't conceive of, design, engineer and produce the airpods in the last three months. Those were in the works during the time you were excoriating Cook, and yet you now feel you can pick and choose which data points have meaning. What about all the times Cook said the company's best days are ahead, that there's plenty of innovation in the pipeline. He said those things AFTER the iPhone 6 was out, after Apple Music and the Beats acquisition, etc. So he'd already proven, in his era at the helm, himself worthy of guiding the company forward, and warranted our confidence in him. To call for his head AFTER all that he did to prove himself, and while the company was in the process of implementing according to his words, is a bit of a mistake. I think most here, except you, see that pretty clearly.
Nope. Sure we knew about Airpods before December. But we never knew how MAGICAL they were until people actually used it in the real world.
Cook has been preaching innovation and Apple's strong pipeline since he was CEO. But the Airpods was the first proof that Apple could release a new MAGICAL product since Jobs died. That is significant. I like the Apple Watch. I've had one since early launch. But I would not consider it a magical product. Very good? Yes.
The focus on services AND giving shareholders a clear path to services growth the next 4 years is massive. Cook talked about services before the last 3 months, but it was always vague. Now he gives shareholders a clear 4 year target = double revenue. That is MASSIVE.
You just keep digging a deeper hole for yourself.
You were gambling at the time, not investing, you got caught deep underwater, panicked, literally had a mental breakdown for all at AI to see, and only recently have you come around to appreciating Tim.
I'm not sure how Apple is a hedge against the rest of the market. Apple is probably more vulnerable than the average company to upheaval in the international order. If the US decides to attack one of the artificial islands built by China in the South China Sea, it will be very bad for everyone, but even worse for Apple. China is a lynchpin in the Apple supply chain. Apple's revenues could collapse if there were shots fired between the US and China.
Oh, come on. That's not going to happen. More likely that Apple will be materially harmed by the implementation of new trade barriers with China than any kind of military flare up.
I hope you're right, however this member of the US National Security Council says otherwise:
LOL. He said in 5 to 10 years. If Trump serves one term, the next president starts the war. If he serves two terms, again the next president starts the war. I think he was slyly jabbing at the Democrats.
I think you're kidding yourself.
Don't underestimate Bannon.
Don't ignore what he says and imagine that he believes what you want him to believe.
I'm not sure how Apple is a hedge against the rest of the market. Apple is probably more vulnerable than the average company to upheaval in the international order. If the US decides to attack one of the artificial islands built by China in the South China Sea, it will be very bad for everyone, but even worse for Apple. China is a lynchpin in the Apple supply chain. Apple's revenues could collapse if there were shots fired between the US and China.
Oh, come on. That's not going to happen. More likely that Apple will be materially harmed by the implementation of new trade barriers with China than any kind of military flare up.
I hope you're right, however this member of the US National Security Council says otherwise:
LOL. He said in 5 to 10 years. If Trump serves one term, the next president starts the war. If he serves two terms, again the next president starts the war. I think he was slyly jabbing at the Democrats.
I think you're kidding yourself.
Don't underestimate Bannon.
Don't ignore what he says and imagine that he believes what you want him to believe.
You do realize US presidents only serve for 4 or 8 years, yes?
On Wednesday, February 22, 2017, a financial analyst writing for MarketWatch designed to pen an article explaining why Warren Buffet should drop Apple for Qualcomm. I decided the analyst had nothing better to do than trash Apple while promoting Qualcomm. Two days later it was announced Buffet's investment had increased in value by $1.6 billion! Now the above is being announced. I am glad I was and am able to see that the analyst was way off base!!
Never believe what those tools write.
Do you own research and due diligence.
Apple will be a powerhouse for the foreseeable future. This stock will reach $150 this year and $200 in a couple of years.
Coming from the guy who has been shitting on Cook and Apple for a year, and demanding Cook be replaced. Is this when you were doing your "research" and "Due diligence". Is that when you "never believed the tools" that shrieked that Cook needs to go in order for the stock to recover? Isn't that what you were shrieking an preaching, day in and day out? And now you're too much of a coward to admit and acknowledge that, pretending like it never happened?
What a joke you are. Your lack of self-awareness is stunning.
On Wednesday, February 22, 2017, a financial analyst writing for MarketWatch designed to pen an article explaining why Warren Buffet should drop Apple for Qualcomm. I decided the analyst had nothing better to do than trash Apple while promoting Qualcomm. Two days later it was announced Buffet's investment had increased in value by $1.6 billion! Now the above is being announced. I am glad I was and am able to see that the analyst was way off base!!
Closely following a company like Apple provides ample evidence of how analysts and the media more often than not get it wrong, which implies they get it wrong on everything else too. It's as though they are either blind, stupid, or deliberately spreading misinformation. The result is a widening of the gap between perception and reality, which increases volatility in the market. And that might actually be the job of these folks, to create volatility, which creates opportunity.
I don't know if analysts are *as wrong* with other companies, because the conundrum for them is that Apple "is different". Apple is not managed in the same way that 95% of other public companies are managed: - Apple doesn't manage the business for the quarterly & annual earnings (looks like we will be a bit under forecasts - better trim some staff) - Apple doesn't create different divisions with own P&L's. Apple is functionally organized. - Apple doesn't buy companies to try & grow revenue alone. They don't buy companies to feed ego. They buy companies to fill in product & talent gaps related to product strategy - Apple doesn't "just do something" because there is a new fad to chase (netbooks, 3DTV, AR,...) - Apple DOES focus on getting something done "right" (at least their version of right) before shipping, getting the most of the solution addressed, rather than ship a feature for spec or "tick-the-box" reasons
Apple is run like a business should be run, and since most of the world doesn't do that, Wall Street doesn't understand them.
On Wednesday, February 22, 2017, a financial analyst writing for MarketWatch designed to pen an article explaining why Warren Buffet should drop Apple for Qualcomm. I decided the analyst had nothing better to do than trash Apple while promoting Qualcomm. Two days later it was announced Buffet's investment had increased in value by $1.6 billion! Now the above is being announced. I am glad I was and am able to see that the analyst was way off base!!
Closely following a company like Apple provides ample evidence of how analysts and the media more often than not get it wrong, which implies they get it wrong on everything else too. It's as though they are either blind, stupid, or deliberately spreading misinformation. The result is a widening of the gap between perception and reality, which increases volatility in the market. And that might actually be the job of these folks, to create volatility, which creates opportunity.
I don't know if analysts are *as wrong* with other companies, because the conundrum for them is that Apple "is different". Apple is not managed in the same way that 95% of other public companies are managed: - Apple doesn't manage the business for the quarterly & annual earnings (looks like we will be a bit under forecasts - better trim some staff) - Apple doesn't create different divisions with own P&L's. Apple is functionally organized. - Apple doesn't buy companies to try & grow revenue alone. They don't buy companies to feed ego. They buy companies to fill in product & talent gaps related to product strategy - Apple doesn't "just do something" because there is a new fad to chase (netbooks, 3DTV, AR,...) - Apple DOES focus on getting something done "right" (at least their version of right) before shipping, getting the most of the solution addressed, rather than ship a feature for spec or "tick-the-box" reasons
Apple is run like a business should be run, and since most of the world doesn't do that, Wall Street doesn't understand them.
I think that's the problem. It's called "SogThink".
On Wednesday, February 22, 2017, a financial analyst writing for MarketWatch designed to pen an article explaining why Warren Buffet should drop Apple for Qualcomm. I decided the analyst had nothing better to do than trash Apple while promoting Qualcomm. Two days later it was announced Buffet's investment had increased in value by $1.6 billion! Now the above is being announced. I am glad I was and am able to see that the analyst was way off base!!
Never believe what those tools write.
Do you own research and due diligence.
Apple will be a powerhouse for the foreseeable future. This stock will reach $150 this year and $200 in a couple of years.
Coming from the guy who has been shitting on Cook and Apple for a year, and demanding Cook be replaced. Is this when you were doing your "research" and "Due diligence". Is that when you "never believed the tools" that shrieked that Cook needs to go in order for the stock to recover? Isn't that what you were shrieking an preaching, day in and day out? And now you're too much of a coward to admit and acknowledge that, pretending like it never happened?
What a joke you are. Your lack of self-awareness is stunning.
Apple is still BY FAR my biggest holding. Obviously I believe in the company.
Its true I criticized Tim Cook last year. But it was with good reason. He clearly stated that China sales would continue to grow in 2016. It did not. That rocked the market. My opinion changed on Cook when:
1. He put huge emphasis on services. And finally giving shareholders a long-term target for growth = services will DOUBLE in 4 years 2. Airpods. Proof that Apple is still the BOSS in innovation 3. Closing deals in India 4. Leaks of a revolutionary iPhone 8 with smaller bezel and OLED
Those 4 points only happened in the last 3 months.
My opinion on Cook changed because he EXECUTED and made wonderful strategic moves. If you look at my post history you will see I praised Cook in 2014-2015.
My opinion on Cook as a CEO will change in the future based on what he does. But I guess you are such a fanboy that you will always support him 100% no matter what?
Trouble is, Apple didn't conceive of, design, engineer and produce the airpods in the last three months. Those were in the works during the time you were excoriating Cook, and yet you now feel you can pick and choose which data points have meaning. What about all the times Cook said the company's best days are ahead, that there's plenty of innovation in the pipeline. He said those things AFTER the iPhone 6 was out, after Apple Music and the Beats acquisition, etc. So he'd already proven, in his era at the helm, himself worthy of guiding the company forward, and warranted our confidence in him. To call for his head AFTER all that he did to prove himself, and while the company was in the process of implementing according to his words, is a bit of a mistake. I think most here, except you, see that pretty clearly.
Nope. Sure we knew about Airpods before December. But we never knew how MAGICAL they were until people actually used it in the real world.
Cook has been preaching innovation and Apple's strong pipeline since he was CEO. But the Airpods was the first proof that Apple could release a new MAGICAL product since Jobs died. That is significant. I like the Apple Watch. I've had one since early launch. But I would not consider it a magical product. Very good? Yes.
The focus on services AND giving shareholders a clear path to services growth the next 4 years is massive. Cook talked about services before the last 3 months, but it was always vague. Now he gives shareholders a clear 4 year target = double revenue. That is MASSIVE.
You're ignoring the point, which has been made to you a dozen times -- Cook knew these things were coming, and told us so, yet you ignored it and foolishly called for his firing. Which looks completely idiotic now, hopefully. Meanwhile, others trusted Cook and assumed he knew what he was doing since he's been executing inside Apple for years and years.
Anyone following your your rants and ravings would have suffered much harm. Theyd have been fools, almost as much as you've proven to be. Your financial and leadership opinions are now proven to be utterly uninformed and completely useless. You have lost any credibility you may have had.
For me, I no longer want to have any single company's stock be more than 6-7% of my portfolio. I sold a bunch of AAPL two years ago, one of the smartest things I've done.
More than anything else, Buffett's substantial acquisition of AAPL is a clear indicator that Apple's days as a growth stock are over. It's a value stock in 2017.
How was divesting smart, considering you've lost wealth from it?
I'm not sure how Apple is a hedge against the rest of the market. Apple is probably more vulnerable than the average company to upheaval in the international order. If the US decides to attack one of the artificial islands built by China in the South China Sea, it will be very bad for everyone, but even worse for Apple. China is a lynchpin in the Apple supply chain. Apple's revenues could collapse if there were shots fired between the US and China.
Oh, come on. That's not going to happen. More likely that Apple will be materially harmed by the implementation of new trade barriers with China than any kind of military flare up.
I hope you're right, however this member of the US National Security Council says otherwise:
LOL. He said in 5 to 10 years. If Trump serves one term, the next president starts the war. If he serves two terms, again the next president starts the war. I think he was slyly jabbing at the Democrats.
I think you're kidding yourself.
Don't underestimate Bannon.
Don't ignore what he says and imagine that he believes what you want him to believe.
You do realize US presidents only serve for 4 or 8 years, yes?
You do realize that "5 to 10 years" includes all of Trump's second term, yes?
On Wednesday, February 22, 2017, a financial analyst writing for MarketWatch designed to pen an article explaining why Warren Buffet should drop Apple for Qualcomm. I decided the analyst had nothing better to do than trash Apple while promoting Qualcomm. Two days later it was announced Buffet's investment had increased in value by $1.6 billion! Now the above is being announced. I am glad I was and am able to see that the analyst was way off base!!
Never believe what those tools write.
Do you own research and due diligence.
Apple will be a powerhouse for the foreseeable future. This stock will reach $150 this year and $200 in a couple of years.
Coming from the guy who has been shitting on Cook and Apple for a year, and demanding Cook be replaced. Is this when you were doing your "research" and "Due diligence". Is that when you "never believed the tools" that shrieked that Cook needs to go in order for the stock to recover? Isn't that what you were shrieking an preaching, day in and day out? And now you're too much of a coward to admit and acknowledge that, pretending like it never happened?
What a joke you are. Your lack of self-awareness is stunning.
Apple is still BY FAR my biggest holding. Obviously I believe in the company.
Its true I criticized Tim Cook last year. But it was with good reason. He clearly stated that China sales would continue to grow in 2016. It did not. That rocked the market. My opinion changed on Cook when:
1. He put huge emphasis on services. And finally giving shareholders a long-term target for growth = services will DOUBLE in 4 years 2. Airpods. Proof that Apple is still the BOSS in innovation 3. Closing deals in India 4. Leaks of a revolutionary iPhone 8 with smaller bezel and OLED
Those 4 points only happened in the last 3 months.
My opinion on Cook changed because he EXECUTED and made wonderful strategic moves. If you look at my post history you will see I praised Cook in 2014-2015.
My opinion on Cook as a CEO will change in the future based on what he does. But I guess you are such a fanboy that you will always support him 100% no matter what?
Trouble is, Apple didn't conceive of, design, engineer and produce the airpods in the last three months. Those were in the works during the time you were excoriating Cook, and yet you now feel you can pick and choose which data points have meaning. What about all the times Cook said the company's best days are ahead, that there's plenty of innovation in the pipeline. He said those things AFTER the iPhone 6 was out, after Apple Music and the Beats acquisition, etc. So he'd already proven, in his era at the helm, himself worthy of guiding the company forward, and warranted our confidence in him. To call for his head AFTER all that he did to prove himself, and while the company was in the process of implementing according to his words, is a bit of a mistake. I think most here, except you, see that pretty clearly.
Nope. Sure we knew about Airpods before December. But we never knew how MAGICAL they were until people actually used it in the real world.
Cook has been preaching innovation and Apple's strong pipeline since he was CEO. But the Airpods was the first proof that Apple could release a new MAGICAL product since Jobs died. That is significant. I like the Apple Watch. I've had one since early launch. But I would not consider it a magical product. Very good? Yes.
The focus on services AND giving shareholders a clear path to services growth the next 4 years is massive. Cook talked about services before the last 3 months, but it was always vague. Now he gives shareholders a clear 4 year target = double revenue. That is MASSIVE.
You're ignoring the point, which has been made to you a dozen times -- Cook knew these things were coming, and told us so, yet you ignored it and foolishly called for his firing. Which looks completely idiotic now, hopefully. Meanwhile, others trusted Cook and assumed he knew what he was doing since he's been executing inside Apple for years and years.
Anyone following your your rants and ravings would have suffered much harm. Theyd have been fools, almost as much as you've proven to be. Your financial and leadership opinions are now proven to be utterly uninformed and completely useless. You have lost any credibility you may have had.
Following my rants?
I've never once said someone should sell all their Apple shares.
Stop with the bull. Bottom line is Apple and Tim Cook underperformed much of 2016. That is a FACT. That's why Cook lost out on tens of millions on bonus. PERIOD.
Goals were set for revenue/profit and Apple MISSED. Again these were goals CREATED by Apple, NOT Wall Street. Those goals determined Cook's year end bonus. He missed those goals.
And who knows? If Apple fired Cook last year, would the stock not be at the same place? Did Cook create the Airpods? iPhone8? Services business? Hell no.
At this point I don't want Cook to be fired. It would do more harm than good. But in 2016 it sure looked like Cook was doing a terrible job.
The only bull is your narrative and nonsensical flip-flopping based on stock prices. It may have looked like Cook was doing a "terrible job" to YOU, but not to everyone else. Apple's value lies in product, not stock price. delighting the customer, not the investor.
I've suggested you read this perhaps a dozen times -- former GE-CEO's idea of the "dumbest idea in the world" (spoiler -- maximizing shareholder value, and managing to stock price):
Just cracks me up how he's trying to save face. The Internet never forgets. He's already been irrelevant. Eventually, he will eventually disappear into that same reference.
He really should be embarrassed at himself, not necessarily at how ridiculous he's been, but how he is handling himself now.
For me, I no longer want to have any single company's stock be more than 6-7% of my portfolio. I sold a bunch of AAPL two years ago, one of the smartest things I've done.
More than anything else, Buffett's substantial acquisition of AAPL is a clear indicator that Apple's days as a growth stock are over. It's a value stock in 2017.
How was divesting smart, considering you've lost wealth from it?
Do you know where he put that money he got from selling Apple? Those investments could have easily out performed Apple.
Two years ago AAPL was at $129. Today its $137. A 6% return. pitiful.
Google is up 45% in the same time period Facebook up 70% Microsoft 52% Netflix 113%
Even the damn Nasdaq at 16% and S&P500 at 14% blew away Apple the last 2 years.
Sog35 is actually correct.
Since the start of 2015, AAPL has not been a particularly stellar investment. Only the recent run up has helped, but they still lag the S&P 500 and Nasdaq indexes since that time.
For me, I no longer want to have any single company's stock be more than 6-7% of my portfolio. I sold a bunch of AAPL two years ago, one of the smartest things I've done.
More than anything else, Buffett's substantial acquisition of AAPL is a clear indicator that Apple's days as a growth stock are over. It's a value stock in 2017.
How was divesting smart, considering you've lost wealth from it?
Quite the contrary, I made far more from NFLX over the past 25 months than I would if I had stayed with AAPL even though my NFLX position is smaller that what I dumped in AAPL.
I sold much of my AAPL holdings in early February 2015 around $110 per share.
I also bought NFLX just about two weeks earlier and boy did those shares take off; the ROI on my NFLX holdings is +202%. And yes, I also added some more to my SPY and QQQ holdings at the time I sold AAPL in February 2015.
Let's say you sold $12K in AAPL in early 2015 and invested $4K in NFLX and $8K in SPY. Today the NFLX would be worth $12K and the SPY would be worth $9120. Your net gain would be $9120 ($8000 + $1120). If you kept all $12K in AAPL, you'd have $12,720, a net gain of $720 (not including AAPL's dividend payout, maybe $450). If you had put the entire $12K in NFLX, it would be worth $36K today.
I wish I had also purchased some AMZN at the time, but of the four FANG stocks, NFLX has performed the best since January 1st, 2015, even outperforming AMZN.
I still have some AAPL shares. Most likely I will not sell these, but I will end up donating occasionally to charity when I need to offset capital gains, something I expect I will need to do this year.
On Wednesday, February 22, 2017, a financial analyst writing for MarketWatch designed to pen an article explaining why Warren Buffet should drop Apple for Qualcomm. I decided the analyst had nothing better to do than trash Apple while promoting Qualcomm. Two days later it was announced Buffet's investment had increased in value by $1.6 billion! Now the above is being announced. I am glad I was and am able to see that the analyst was way off base!!
Never believe what those tools write.
Do you own research and due diligence.
Apple will be a powerhouse for the foreseeable future. This stock will reach $150 this year and $200 in a couple of years.
Coming from the guy who has been shitting on Cook and Apple for a year, and demanding Cook be replaced. Is this when you were doing your "research" and "Due diligence". Is that when you "never believed the tools" that shrieked that Cook needs to go in order for the stock to recover? Isn't that what you were shrieking an preaching, day in and day out? And now you're too much of a coward to admit and acknowledge that, pretending like it never happened?
What a joke you are. Your lack of self-awareness is stunning.
Apple is still BY FAR my biggest holding. Obviously I believe in the company.
Its true I criticized Tim Cook last year. But it was with good reason. He clearly stated that China sales would continue to grow in 2016. It did not. That rocked the market. My opinion changed on Cook when:
1. He put huge emphasis on services. And finally giving shareholders a long-term target for growth = services will DOUBLE in 4 years 2. Airpods. Proof that Apple is still the BOSS in innovation 3. Closing deals in India 4. Leaks of a revolutionary iPhone 8 with smaller bezel and OLED
Those 4 points only happened in the last 3 months.
My opinion on Cook changed because he EXECUTED and made wonderful strategic moves. If you look at my post history you will see I praised Cook in 2014-2015.
My opinion on Cook as a CEO will change in the future based on what he does. But I guess you are such a fanboy that you will always support him 100% no matter what?
Trouble is, Apple didn't conceive of, design, engineer and produce the airpods in the last three months. Those were in the works during the time you were excoriating Cook, and yet you now feel you can pick and choose which data points have meaning. What about all the times Cook said the company's best days are ahead, that there's plenty of innovation in the pipeline. He said those things AFTER the iPhone 6 was out, after Apple Music and the Beats acquisition, etc. So he'd already proven, in his era at the helm, himself worthy of guiding the company forward, and warranted our confidence in him. To call for his head AFTER all that he did to prove himself, and while the company was in the process of implementing according to his words, is a bit of a mistake. I think most here, except you, see that pretty clearly.
Nope. Sure we knew about Airpods before December. But we never knew how MAGICAL they were until people actually used it in the real world.
Cook has been preaching innovation and Apple's strong pipeline since he was CEO. But the Airpods was the first proof that Apple could release a new MAGICAL product since Jobs died. That is significant. I like the Apple Watch. I've had one since early launch. But I would not consider it a magical product. Very good? Yes.
The focus on services AND giving shareholders a clear path to services growth the next 4 years is massive. Cook talked about services before the last 3 months, but it was always vague. Now he gives shareholders a clear 4 year target = double revenue. That is MASSIVE.
I see. You will call for a CEO's head because he's not giving the market reason to love the stock, even though he's doing a fantastic job. You have zero vision regarding the Apple Watch, a product that's already drown Fitbit and is strangling Fossil, and you expect some unknown new CEO will do a better job. Got it.
I'm not sure how Apple is a hedge against the rest of the market. Apple is probably more vulnerable than the average company to upheaval in the international order. If the US decides to attack one of the artificial islands built by China in the South China Sea, it will be very bad for everyone, but even worse for Apple. China is a lynchpin in the Apple supply chain. Apple's revenues could collapse if there were shots fired between the US and China.
Oh, come on. That's not going to happen. More likely that Apple will be materially harmed by the implementation of new trade barriers with China than any kind of military flare up.
I hope you're right, however this member of the US National Security Council says otherwise:
LOL. He said in 5 to 10 years. If Trump serves one term, the next president starts the war. If he serves two terms, again the next president starts the war. I think he was slyly jabbing at the Democrats.
I think you're kidding yourself.
Don't underestimate Bannon.
Don't ignore what he says and imagine that he believes what you want him to believe.
You do realize US presidents only serve for 4 or 8 years, yes?
You do realize that "5 to 10 years" includes all of Trump's second term, yes?
If Trump serves 1 term, 5 years exceeds that single term. If Trump serves for 2 terms 10 years exceeds that second term.
On Wednesday, February 22, 2017, a financial analyst writing for MarketWatch designed to pen an article explaining why Warren Buffet should drop Apple for Qualcomm. I decided the analyst had nothing better to do than trash Apple while promoting Qualcomm. Two days later it was announced Buffet's investment had increased in value by $1.6 billion! Now the above is being announced. I am glad I was and am able to see that the analyst was way off base!!
Never believe what those tools write.
Do you own research and due diligence.
Apple will be a powerhouse for the foreseeable future. This stock will reach $150 this year and $200 in a couple of years.
Coming from the guy who has been shitting on Cook and Apple for a year, and demanding Cook be replaced. Is this when you were doing your "research" and "Due diligence". Is that when you "never believed the tools" that shrieked that Cook needs to go in order for the stock to recover? Isn't that what you were shrieking an preaching, day in and day out? And now you're too much of a coward to admit and acknowledge that, pretending like it never happened?
What a joke you are. Your lack of self-awareness is stunning.
Apple is still BY FAR my biggest holding. Obviously I believe in the company.
Its true I criticized Tim Cook last year. But it was with good reason. He clearly stated that China sales would continue to grow in 2016. It did not. That rocked the market. My opinion changed on Cook when:
1. He put huge emphasis on services. And finally giving shareholders a long-term target for growth = services will DOUBLE in 4 years 2. Airpods. Proof that Apple is still the BOSS in innovation 3. Closing deals in India 4. Leaks of a revolutionary iPhone 8 with smaller bezel and OLED
Those 4 points only happened in the last 3 months.
My opinion on Cook changed because he EXECUTED and made wonderful strategic moves. If you look at my post history you will see I praised Cook in 2014-2015.
My opinion on Cook as a CEO will change in the future based on what he does. But I guess you are such a fanboy that you will always support him 100% no matter what?
Trouble is, Apple didn't conceive of, design, engineer and produce the airpods in the last three months. Those were in the works during the time you were excoriating Cook, and yet you now feel you can pick and choose which data points have meaning. What about all the times Cook said the company's best days are ahead, that there's plenty of innovation in the pipeline. He said those things AFTER the iPhone 6 was out, after Apple Music and the Beats acquisition, etc. So he'd already proven, in his era at the helm, himself worthy of guiding the company forward, and warranted our confidence in him. To call for his head AFTER all that he did to prove himself, and while the company was in the process of implementing according to his words, is a bit of a mistake. I think most here, except you, see that pretty clearly.
Nope. Sure we knew about Airpods before December. But we never knew how MAGICAL they were until people actually used it in the real world.
Cook has been preaching innovation and Apple's strong pipeline since he was CEO. But the Airpods was the first proof that Apple could release a new MAGICAL product since Jobs died. That is significant. I like the Apple Watch. I've had one since early launch. But I would not consider it a magical product. Very good? Yes.
The focus on services AND giving shareholders a clear path to services growth the next 4 years is massive. Cook talked about services before the last 3 months, but it was always vague. Now he gives shareholders a clear 4 year target = double revenue. That is MASSIVE.
You're ignoring the point, which has been made to you a dozen times -- Cook knew these things were coming, and told us so, yet you ignored it and foolishly called for his firing. Which looks completely idiotic now, hopefully. Meanwhile, others trusted Cook and assumed he knew what he was doing since he's been executing inside Apple for years and years.
Anyone following your your rants and ravings would have suffered much harm. Theyd have been fools, almost as much as you've proven to be. Your financial and leadership opinions are now proven to be utterly uninformed and completely useless. You have lost any credibility you may have had.
Following my rants?
I've never once said someone should sell all their Apple shares.
Stop with the bull. Bottom line is Apple and Tim Cook underperformed much of 2016. That is a FACT. That's why Cook lost out on tens of millions on bonus. PERIOD.
Goals were set for revenue/profit and Apple MISSED. Again these were goals CREATED by Apple, NOT Wall Street. Those goals determined Cook's year end bonus. He missed those goals.
And who knows? If Apple fired Cook last year, would the stock not be at the same place? Did Cook create the Airpods? iPhone8? Services business? Hell no.
At this point I don't want Cook to be fired. It would do more harm than good. But in 2016 it sure looked like Cook was doing a terrible job.
It looked like Cook was doing aterrible job to those with no ability to see beyond the growth-at-all-costs Wall St myopia. And how do you know that those goals Apple set, and missed, were set at the beginning of 2016? Those could have been mapped out years earlier, against the big stock option grants that Cook and other management received.
Regardless, here's what the myopic fail miserably to see. If you add up all the revenues and profits of a company under two scenarios, one where the company grows steadily for a number of years to reach a given level of revenue and profits, and a second scenario where a company grows very rapidly to that same level in a few years and then levels off, after the same number of years has passed, the second scenario will have yielded a larger cumulative amount of revenue and profits. That's the better scenario and the one Apple has enjoyed, but Wall St foolishly prefers the first scenario, and so, apparently, do you.
For me, I no longer want to have any single company's stock be more than 6-7% of my portfolio. I sold a bunch of AAPL two years ago, one of the smartest things I've done.
More than anything else, Buffett's substantial acquisition of AAPL is a clear indicator that Apple's days as a growth stock are over. It's a value stock in 2017.
How was divesting smart, considering you've lost wealth from it?
Do you know where he put that money he got from selling Apple? Those investments could have easily out performed Apple.
Two years ago AAPL was at $129. Today its $137. A 6% return. pitiful.
Google is up 45% in the same time period Facebook up 70% Microsoft 52% Netflix 113%
Even the damn Nasdaq at 16% and S&P500 at 14% blew away Apple the last 2 years.
Sog35 is actually correct.
Since the start of 2015, AAPL has not been a particularly stellar investment. Only the recent run up has helped, but they still lag the S&P 500 and Nasdaq indexes since that time.
For me, I no longer want to have any single company's stock be more than 6-7% of my portfolio. I sold a bunch of AAPL two years ago, one of the smartest things I've done.
More than anything else, Buffett's substantial acquisition of AAPL is a clear indicator that Apple's days as a growth stock are over. It's a value stock in 2017.
How was divesting smart, considering you've lost wealth from it?
Quite the contrary, I made far more from NFLX over the past 25 months than I would if I had stayed with AAPL even though my NFLX position is smaller that what I dumped in AAPL.
I sold much of my AAPL holdings in early February 2015 around $110 per share.
I also bought NFLX just about two weeks earlier and boy did those shares take off; the ROI on my NFLX holdings is +202%. And yes, I also added some more to my SPY and QQQ holdings at the time I sold AAPL in February 2015.
Let's say you sold $12K in AAPL in early 2015 and invested $4K in NFLX and $8K in SPY. Today the NFLX would be worth $12K and the SPY would be worth $9120. Your net gain would be $9120 ($8000 + $1120). If you kept all $12K in AAPL, you'd have $12,720, a net gain of $720 (not including AAPL's dividend payout, maybe $450). If you had put the entire $12K in NFLX, it would be worth $36K today.
I wish I had also purchased some AMZN at the time, but of the four FANG stocks, NFLX has performed the best since January 1st, 2015, even outperforming AMZN.
I still have some AAPL shares. Most likely I will not sell these, but I will end up donating occasionally to charity when I need to offset capital gains, something I expect I will need to do this year.
None of this has anything to do with Sog's previous contention that Cook should have been fired, except to those who believe CEOs should manage to the stock price.
Comments
It's funny watching him trying to backtrack his arrogance.
While I do think that China will flex its military strength beyond occupying the Spratly Islands, it won't be until they have stabilized their own consumer economy, and even then, we might be looking at decades, and the U.S. would be foolish to attack at this time.
You were gambling at the time, not investing, you got caught deep underwater, panicked, literally had a mental breakdown for all at AI to see, and only recently have you come around to appreciating Tim.
Good luck with that.
He's changing his name to sog35_new
- Apple doesn't manage the business for the quarterly & annual earnings (looks like we will be a bit under forecasts - better trim some staff)
- Apple doesn't create different divisions with own P&L's. Apple is functionally organized.
- Apple doesn't buy companies to try & grow revenue alone. They don't buy companies to feed ego. They buy companies to fill in product & talent gaps related to product strategy
- Apple doesn't "just do something" because there is a new fad to chase (netbooks, 3DTV, AR,...)
- Apple DOES focus on getting something done "right" (at least their version of right) before shipping, getting the most of the solution addressed, rather than ship a feature for spec or "tick-the-box" reasons
Apple is run like a business should be run, and since most of the world doesn't do that, Wall Street doesn't understand them.
Anyone following your your rants and ravings would have suffered much harm. Theyd have been fools, almost as much as you've proven to be. Your financial and leadership opinions are now proven to be utterly uninformed and completely useless. You have lost any credibility you may have had.
I've suggested you read this perhaps a dozen times -- former GE-CEO's idea of the "dumbest idea in the world" (spoiler -- maximizing shareholder value, and managing to stock price):
The Dumbest Idea In The World: Maximizing Shareholder Value - Forbes
...its about the only smart thing you'll read on Forbes. something which you continually ignore, I've noted.
Just cracks me up how he's trying to save face. The Internet never forgets. He's already been irrelevant. Eventually, he will eventually disappear into that same reference.
He really should be embarrassed at himself, not necessarily at how ridiculous he's been, but how he is handling himself now.
Since the start of 2015, AAPL has not been a particularly stellar investment. Only the recent run up has helped, but they still lag the S&P 500 and Nasdaq indexes since that time.
Quite the contrary, I made far more from NFLX over the past 25 months than I would if I had stayed with AAPL even though my NFLX position is smaller that what I dumped in AAPL.
I sold much of my AAPL holdings in early February 2015 around $110 per share.
I also bought NFLX just about two weeks earlier and boy did those shares take off; the ROI on my NFLX holdings is +202%. And yes, I also added some more to my SPY and QQQ holdings at the time I sold AAPL in February 2015.
Let's say you sold $12K in AAPL in early 2015 and invested $4K in NFLX and $8K in SPY. Today the NFLX would be worth $12K and the SPY would be worth $9120. Your net gain would be $9120 ($8000 + $1120). If you kept all $12K in AAPL, you'd have $12,720, a net gain of $720 (not including AAPL's dividend payout, maybe $450). If you had put the entire $12K in NFLX, it would be worth $36K today.
I wish I had also purchased some AMZN at the time, but of the four FANG stocks, NFLX has performed the best since January 1st, 2015, even outperforming AMZN.
I still have some AAPL shares. Most likely I will not sell these, but I will end up donating occasionally to charity when I need to offset capital gains, something I expect I will need to do this year.
Regardless, here's what the myopic fail miserably to see. If you add up all the revenues and profits of a company under two scenarios, one where the company grows steadily for a number of years to reach a given level of revenue and profits, and a second scenario where a company grows very rapidly to that same level in a few years and then levels off, after the same number of years has passed, the second scenario will have yielded a larger cumulative amount of revenue and profits. That's the better scenario and the one Apple has enjoyed, but Wall St foolishly prefers the first scenario, and so, apparently, do you.