AAPL price is tanking. With good reason. As one analyst said, questioning Cook, not reporting the unit sales says Apple has something to hide.
Cook’s grocery cart analogy falls flat. Yes, the value of cart is important, but no grocery store can survive if they don’t know what items are selling, when to reorder, and how much to reorder.
Now, like many, I don’t have a great deal of respect for the analysts. Unit sales is not the defining number that should be used evaluate Apple, though it’s the defining number which they use to write useless and baseless opinion pieces. Apple is different now, and unit sales can no longer grow exponentially; steady and linear is good. Apple has become somewhat of a utility, and unit sales will reflect that.
Apple need to reverse their decision, and do a better job of telling the story about them becoming a utility, and what they offer. It seems that was the story Jobs always told.
AAPL is tanking because analysts realize this was the last quarter they could manipulate the stock price based on their wrong unit guestimates. Now they have no excuses on their wrong revenue guestimates when Apple sets new records in the near future. .
But that goes both ways - the analysts can come up with whatever numbers they want by waving their hands in a certain way and there will be no actual data to prove them wrong.
I've said this repeatedly, and will say it again: I truly wish Apple would just STOP giving guidance.
It'll join a perfectly fine list of successful companies, such as Google, Coca Cola, Berkshire Hathaway, Goldman Sachs, J P Morgan-Chase, Facebook, and Unilever. In fact, most people don't realize that a vast majority of the companies in the S&P500 -- over two-thirds -- do not provide quarterly guidance.
I remember once a host on CNBC threw his phone on the table and said Apple’s a gadget maker and then sneeringly said what happens when someone else comes along and builds a better mouse trap?
So long as Wall Street sees Apple as nothing more than a gadget maker and thinks somebody else will come out with a better gadget at a cheaper price the company will be undervalued. It’s not even that Wall Street treats Apple as a hardware company; they treat Apple as a consumer fad that will go out of fashion any day now. And outside of Apple Music, Apple services are primarily tied to Apple devices. Sure there’s probably some people still buying stuff on Windows desktop iTunes but the majority of Apple’s services revenue is coming from Apple hardware. If hardware sales stall eventually so does the install base. And there’s only so much more $$ you can wring out of existing customers. Of course none of us know what’s in the pipeline product wise but you can’t value what you don’t know. With Steve Jobs Wall Street assumed there was always something amazing being cooked up somewhere. With Tim Cook their assumption is the opposite.
AAPL price is tanking. With good reason. As one analyst said, questioning Cook, not reporting the unit sales says Apple has something to hide.
Cook’s grocery cart analogy falls flat. Yes, the value of cart is important, but no grocery store can survive if they don’t know what items are selling, when to reorder, and how much to reorder.
Now, like many, I don’t have a great deal of respect for the analysts. Unit sales is not the defining number that should be used evaluate Apple, though it’s the defining number which they use to write useless and baseless opinion pieces. Apple is different now, and unit sales can no longer grow exponentially; steady and linear is good. Apple has become somewhat of a utility, and unit sales will reflect that.
Apple need to reverse their decision, and do a better job of telling the story about them becoming a utility, and what they offer. It seems that was the story Jobs always told.
AAPL is tanking because analysts realize this was the last quarter they could manipulate the stock price based on their wrong unit guestimates. Now they have no excuses on their wrong revenue guestimates when Apple sets new records in the near future. .
But that goes both ways - the analysts can come up with whatever numbers they want by waving their hands in a certain way and there will be no actual data to prove them wrong.
I've said this repeatedly, and will say it again: I truly wish Apple would just STOP giving guidance.
It'll join a perfectly fine list of successful companies, such as Google, Coca Cola, Berkshire Hathaway, Goldman Sachs, J P Morgan-Chase, Facebook, and Unilever. In fact, most people don't realize that a vast majority of the companies in the S&P500 -- over two-thirds -- do not provide quarterly guidance.
I disagree. If investors just rely on analysts' made up guidance, the stock would get killed every quarter.
Does that happen every quarter to the two-thirds that don’t? If not, why not?
I've said this repeatedly, and will say it again: I truly wish Apple would just STOP giving guidance.
It'll join a perfectly fine list of successful companies, such as Google, Coca Cola, Berkshire Hathaway, Goldman Sachs, J P Morgan-Chase, Facebook, and Unilever. In fact, most people don't realize that a vast majority of the companies in the S&P500 -- over two-thirds -- do not provide quarterly guidance.
I remember once a host on CNBC threw his phone on the table and said Apple’s a gadget maker and then sneeringly said what happens when someone else comes along and builds a better mouse trap?
So long as Wall Street sees Apple as nothing more than a gadget maker and thinks somebody else will come out with a better gadget at a cheaper price the company will be undervalued. It’s not even that Wall Street treats Apple as a hardware company; they treat Apple as a consumer fad that will go out of fashion any day now. And outside of Apple Music, Apple services are primarily tied to Apple devices. Sure there’s probably some people still buying stuff on Windows desktop iTunes but the majority of Apple’s services revenue is coming from Apple hardware. If hardware sales stall eventually so does the install base. And there’s only so much more $$ you can wring out of existing customers. Of course none of us know what’s in the pipeline product wise but you can’t value what you don’t know. With Steve Jobs Wall Street assumed there was always something amazing being cooked up somewhere. With Tim Cook their assumption is the opposite.
A better mousetrap hasn’t come along yet that combines both hardware and software the way Apple does. Yet. We’re luckily still a ways away. There’s no one remotely on the horizon.
As to “something amazing being cooked up”, despite my initial misgivings, the Watch has become, in my mind, something truly amazing. But I do agree that the 10-12 year period 1998-2010 under Jobs will never be replicated at Apple. Or for that matter, in tech. It was, by hindsight, a simply awe-inspiring, one-off period of innovation.
Because Apple has been charging more more for their Products, but offering less and less compared to the cost they're charging, I decided to build a hackintosh. It is amazing how powerful machine one can build for literally about 40% of what any Mac would cost you. I love Apple and their operating systems and I can never find myself using Windows, but I really am getting tired of the Apple tax. It is become absolutely ridiculous and for anybody who's done the math, you'll realize that in 2018 Apple is charging somewhere between 20% and 25% more for their products than they did in 2017. What is even worse, if you look at the speed bumps of the latest Products such as the new MacBook air or the Mac mini, they're very small upgrades compared what they should've been and how much they were charging previously. That is an article I like to see an apple insider. It really is my hope that they have one of the worst quarters ever coming up because how much they're overcharging for their products. If that happens, then maybe they will learn their lesson and lower the prices back down to something more reasonable. Hell, they just made $64 billion in the last three months, I think they can afford to take a hit and lower their prices some.
Because Apple has been charging more more for their Products, but offering less and less compared to the cost they're charging, I decided to build a hackintosh. It is amazing how powerful machine one can build for literally about 40% of what any Mac would cost you. I love Apple and their operating systems and I can never find myself using Windows, but I really am getting tired of the Apple tax. It is become absolutely ridiculous and for anybody who's done the math, you'll realize that in 2018 Apple is charging somewhere between 20% and 25% more for their products than they did in 2017. What is even worse, if you look at the speed bumps of the latest Products such as the new MacBook air or the Mac mini, they're very small upgrades compared what they should've been and how much they were charging previously. That is an article I like to see an apple insider. It really is my hope that they have one of the worst quarters ever coming up because how much they're overcharging for their products. If that happens, then maybe they will learn their lesson and lower the prices back down to something more reasonable. Hell, they just made $64 billion in the last three months, I think they can afford to take a hit and lower their prices some.
They are giving guidance to a record breaking quarter in 2019Q1. And if you think a ‘bad’ quarter will make Apple lower prices you are having a laugh.
This ‘TOO EXPENSIVE’ narrative needs to die a horrible death. If you think Apple prices things to high, you’re wrong. People keep voting with their wallets.
So not better built and designed products, superior operating systems, security, privacy, eco-system, higher customer satisfaction, in-house CPUs on the rise that look like they will dominate the industry thus higher margins ... I could go on, no a typical Wall Street analyst comment.
Bottom line is prices are going up. Whether someone can afford something isn’t dependent on whether that something is better or not. Sure some people’s buying decisions will be based on value. But for many others price alone matters. It’s not like people’s wages are skyrocketing or they have all this disposable income they didn’t before.
I'd simply go back to my earlier post; if a buyer saves up and buys a better product they are wise. Rushing out and buying on price alone is never wise.
For some perspective. Just so you know I buy PCs too. At the lower end, if you price out a good, and I stress good, NUC set up you will find it is expensive, easily $1,100 and up. People wanting Apple equipment usually know they are getting top of the line equipment or even if they don't know, they are. The lower end PC equipment that appears to be cheap is. They use motherboards that can't take much RAM or slow RAM, they use out of date Intel or AMD CPUs, god-awful GPUs and so on. At the high end, if you actually take the time to do a BTO high-end Dell for example, as I just did, you are paying pretty much on par with Apple pricing, well over $2,000.
So my conclusion here is Apple is not expensive compared to high-quality alternatives. The issue you are focussing on is price, that most often edges up and true of so many things in life. That said, after all these years Apple has for the most part always offered a lot more in any item at a similar or at a slightly increased price than whatever it is replacing and in some cases far more for the same price or less. Let us not forget the jewel is the Apple operating systems which no one else has as well as the top of the line and now even bleeding edge hardware, e.g. Apple's new SoCs.
I don't know your age or how long you have used Apple products but I recall vividly buying dozens of Mac II FXs fully loaded and each one cost in excess of $12,000 and that doesn't include a $4,000 calibrated color monitor and a high-end graphics card on each Mac. The top of the line Mac Pro's in 2013 and thereafter and the latest iMac Pro are well below that price point.
So not better built and designed products, superior operating systems, security, privacy, eco-system, higher customer satisfaction, in-house CPUs on the rise that look like they will dominate the industry thus higher margins ... I could go on, no a typical Wall Street analyst comment.
Bottom line is prices are going up. Whether someone can afford something isn’t dependent on whether that something is better or not. Sure some people’s buying decisions will be based on value. But for many others price alone matters. It’s not like people’s wages are skyrocketing or they have all this disposable income they didn’t before.
I'd simply go back to my earlier post; if a buyer saves up and buys a better product they are wise. Rushing out and buying on price alone is never wise.
For some perspective. Just so you know I buy PCs too. At the lower end, if you price out a good, and I stress good, NUC set up you will find it is expensive, easily $1,100 and up. People wanting Apple equipment usually know they are getting top of the line equipment or even if they don't know, they are. The lower end PC equipment that appears to be cheap is. They use motherboards that can't take much RAM or slow RAM, they use out of date Intel or AMD CPUs, god-awful GPUs and so on. At the high end, if you actually take the time to do a BTO high-end Dell for example, as I just did, you are paying pretty much on par with Apple pricing, well over $2,000.
So my conclusion here is Apple is not expensive compared to high-quality alternatives. The issue you are focussing on is price, that most often edges up and true of so many things in life. That said, after all these years Apple has for the most part always offered a lot more in any item at a similar or at a slightly increased price than whatever it is replacing and in some cases far more for the same price or less. Let us not forget the jewel is the Apple operating systems which no one else has as well as the top of the line and now even bleeding edge hardware, e.g. Apple's new SoCs.
I don't know your age or how long you have used Apple products but I recall vividly buying dozens of Mac II FXs fully loaded and each one cost in excess of $12,000 and that doesn't include a $4,000 calibrated color monitor and a high-end graphics card on each Mac. The top of the line Mac Pro's in 2013 and thereafter and the latest iMac Pro are well below that price point.
Better is relative. I am really surprised to read that Mac users are giving other Mac users advice on how to save money so they can continue to purchase overpriced Apple products.
You can compare a low end spec'd NUC to the Mini and claim the NUC is inferior, but if you shop around you can find better equipped NUC's, compare ram and SSD prices, and put together a stellar machine for less than anything Apple offers. What's more as time goes on and things advance, you can replace most of the components as well. IF you really want to compare the two, consider what happens if you purchase a mini with non replaceable storage and the storage goes bad. If it happens to a NUC you put in a new SSD and move on. If it happens to Apple you are stuck. Sure you could go external but then what's the point of buying a compact desktop to begin with? A smart user would buy Apple care just in case, but then you have to factor that into the cost.
I have been using Apple/Mac for a very long time. One thing you fail to point out was that Macs sold 30 years ago were purchased by a niche market of users. It was not a mass produced mainstream product. If you wanted to be in on something new and different it was going to cost you. It was like ordering a custom made suit as opposed to off the rack. If you truly are a long time user you will remember the constant arguments with PC users about being able to do the same thing on a Mac as you could a PC. During that period of time the stereotypical comment was "I don't use a Mac because their software is limited". That was true at some point, but as time went on Apple and their software began to catch up, yet the stereotypical comments continued even to this day. Perceptions, stereotypes, and brand loyalty seems to dictate purchases these days. Today the perception is Apple is superior and everything else is inferior. If you want to play you are going to have to pay. I think that line of thinking makes Apple products better in the minds of the loyal masses, but if you consider value it really exposes their shortsightedness.
Nowadays Apple is mainstream and their prices should reflect that. I see 10 year olds with iPhone XS Max's in their back pocket. The social landscape is littered with MBP users browsing Facebook and checking their emails. They don't need a Pro machine to do what they are doing, but to many it's more important to use Apple. Granted, for a true pro user spending a lot more to run a business makes sense. To my granddaughter or a college freshman not so much.
I love Apple products but I feel the new mini being released with a 128gb of storage is insulting. To upgrade it will cost a lot more than the competition. I don't call that better. I call it brilliant marketing.
I continue to live in an all Apple household, but as prices continue to increase, and you weigh what you get for the money, it is making me look over the fence to see if the grass looks the same or if it's any greener on the other side.
So not better built and designed products, superior operating systems, security, privacy, eco-system, higher customer satisfaction, in-house CPUs on the rise that look like they will dominate the industry thus higher margins ... I could go on, no a typical Wall Street analyst comment.
Bottom line is prices are going up. Whether someone can afford something isn’t dependent on whether that something is better or not. Sure some people’s buying decisions will be based on value. But for many others price alone matters. It’s not like people’s wages are skyrocketing or they have all this disposable income they didn’t before.
I'd simply go back to my earlier post; if a buyer saves up and buys a better product they are wise. Rushing out and buying on price alone is never wise.
For some perspective. Just so you know I buy PCs too. At the lower end, if you price out a good, and I stress good, NUC set up you will find it is expensive, easily $1,100 and up. People wanting Apple equipment usually know they are getting top of the line equipment or even if they don't know, they are. The lower end PC equipment that appears to be cheap is. They use motherboards that can't take much RAM or slow RAM, they use out of date Intel or AMD CPUs, god-awful GPUs and so on. At the high end, if you actually take the time to do a BTO high-end Dell for example, as I just did, you are paying pretty much on par with Apple pricing, well over $2,000.
So my conclusion here is Apple is not expensive compared to high-quality alternatives. The issue you are focussing on is price, that most often edges up and true of so many things in life. That said, after all these years Apple has for the most part always offered a lot more in any item at a similar or at a slightly increased price than whatever it is replacing and in some cases far more for the same price or less. Let us not forget the jewel is the Apple operating systems which no one else has as well as the top of the line and now even bleeding edge hardware, e.g. Apple's new SoCs.
I don't know your age or how long you have used Apple products but I recall vividly buying dozens of Mac II FXs fully loaded and each one cost in excess of $12,000 and that doesn't include a $4,000 calibrated color monitor and a high-end graphics card on each Mac. The top of the line Mac Pro's in 2013 and thereafter and the latest iMac Pro are well below that price point.
Better is relative. I am really surprised to read that Mac users are giving other Mac users advice on how to save money so they can continue to purchase overpriced Apple products.
You can compare a low end spec'd NUC to the Mini and claim the NUC is inferior, but if you shop around you can find better equipped NUC's, compare ram and SSD prices, and put together a stellar machine for less than anything Apple offers. What's more as time goes on and things advance, you can replace most of the components as well. IF you really want to compare the two, consider what happens if you purchase a mini with non replaceable storage and the storage goes bad. If it happens to a NUC you put in a new SSD and move on. If it happens to Apple you are stuck. Sure you could go external but then what's the point of buying a compact desktop to begin with? A smart user would buy Apple care just in case, but then you have to factor that into the cost.
I have been using Apple/Mac for a very long time. One thing you fail to point out was that Macs sold 30 years ago were purchased by a niche market of users. It was not a mass produced mainstream product. If you wanted to be in on something new and different it was going to cost you. It was like ordering a custom made suit as opposed to off the rack. If you truly are a long time user you will remember the constant arguments with PC users about being able to do the same thing on a Mac as you could a PC. During that period of time the stereotypical comment was "I don't use a Mac because their software is limited". That was true at some point, but as time went on Apple and their software began to catch up, yet the stereotypical comments continued even to this day. Perceptions, stereotypes, and brand loyalty seems to dictate purchases these days. Today the perception is Apple is superior and everything else is inferior. If you want to play you are going to have to pay. I think that line of thinking makes Apple products better in the minds of the loyal masses, but if you consider value it really exposes their shortsightedness.
Nowadays Apple is mainstream and their prices should reflect that. I see 10 year olds with iPhone XS Max's in their back pocket. The social landscape is littered with MBP users browsing Facebook and checking their emails. They don't need a Pro machine to do what they are doing, but to many it's more important to use Apple. Granted, for a true pro user spending a lot more to run a business makes sense. To my granddaughter or a college freshman not so much.
I love Apple products but I feel the new mini being released with a 128gb of storage is insulting. To upgrade it will cost a lot more than the competition. I don't call that better. I call it brilliant marketing.
I continue to live in an all Apple household, but as prices continue to increase, and you weigh what you get for the money, it is making me look over the fence to see if the grass looks the same or if it's any greener on the other side.
The price is not an issue. I bought a Macbook Pro in 2011 and it was ‘expensive’. $2350 CAD in 2011 (~$2600 in 2018 money).
It is still running great and Mojave is the 1st MacOS update my machine has not been able to get. 6 yrs of software support. I will continue to get security/bug fix updates.The battery is still reporting as ‘Good’. Barring an accident or catastrophic hardware event this machine could go on for years. Oh, and not a single virus.
Apple products have always been expensive relative to the market. Given my MBP experience I wouldnt even consider using a non-Macintosh computer. I never imagined I would get near 10yrs out of a machine. Plus, I could probably still sell it for a few hundred dollars.
For me, the real question is when/if my MBP does need to be replaced will I even replace it? It is being used less and less for computing and is mostly used as a place to back up our photos/videos. Even my iPad is collecting dust as the iPhone/Watch/Airpods are so amazing and on me at all times.
Cook’s grocery cart analogy falls flat. Yes, the value of cart is important, but no grocery store can survive if they don’t know what items are selling, when to reorder, and how much to reorder.
Only the grocery store needs to know what is selling, what to reorder and how much to reorder. The customer doesn't need to know and someone analysing the store doesn't need to know.
The analogy is pretty spot on. Only Apple needs to know how much is selling. Everyone else needs to only know how much Apple is making.
Well, it’s pretty clear at this point the market is trying to destroy AAPL stock as punishment for Tim springing this reporting surprise on investors. The idea could’ve been sold to traders in a much, much better way. I’m seeing class-action lawsuits over this in a vain attempt to recoup losses.
Personally, I’ve got a large buy order in now and think there is more pressure to come for the stock.
Comments
So long as Wall Street sees Apple as nothing more than a gadget maker and thinks somebody else will come out with a better gadget at a cheaper price the company will be undervalued. It’s not even that Wall Street treats Apple as a hardware company; they treat Apple as a consumer fad that will go out of fashion any day now. And outside of Apple Music, Apple services are primarily tied to Apple devices. Sure there’s probably some people still buying stuff on Windows desktop iTunes but the majority of Apple’s services revenue is coming from Apple hardware. If hardware sales stall eventually so does the install base. And there’s only so much more $$ you can wring out of existing customers. Of course none of us know what’s in the pipeline product wise but you can’t value what you don’t know. With Steve Jobs Wall Street assumed there was always something amazing being cooked up somewhere. With Tim Cook their assumption is the opposite.
As to “something amazing being cooked up”, despite my initial misgivings, the Watch has become, in my mind, something truly amazing. But I do agree that the 10-12 year period 1998-2010 under Jobs will never be replicated at Apple. Or for that matter, in tech. It was, by hindsight, a simply awe-inspiring, one-off period of innovation.
This ‘TOO EXPENSIVE’ narrative needs to die a horrible death. If you think Apple prices things to high, you’re wrong. People keep voting with their wallets.
For some perspective. Just so you know I buy PCs too. At the lower end, if you price out a good, and I stress good, NUC set up you will find it is expensive, easily $1,100 and up. People wanting Apple equipment usually know they are getting top of the line equipment or even if they don't know, they are. The lower end PC equipment that appears to be cheap is. They use motherboards that can't take much RAM or slow RAM, they use out of date Intel or AMD CPUs, god-awful GPUs and so on. At the high end, if you actually take the time to do a BTO high-end Dell for example, as I just did, you are paying pretty much on par with Apple pricing, well over $2,000.
So my conclusion here is Apple is not expensive compared to high-quality alternatives. The issue you are focussing on is price, that most often edges up and true of so many things in life. That said, after all these years Apple has for the most part always offered a lot more in any item at a similar or at a slightly increased price than whatever it is replacing and in some cases far more for the same price or less. Let us not forget the jewel is the Apple operating systems which no one else has as well as the top of the line and now even bleeding edge hardware, e.g. Apple's new SoCs.
I don't know your age or how long you have used Apple products but I recall vividly buying dozens of Mac II FXs fully loaded and each one cost in excess of $12,000 and that doesn't include a $4,000 calibrated color monitor and a high-end graphics card on each Mac. The top of the line Mac Pro's in 2013 and thereafter and the latest iMac Pro are well below that price point.
You can compare a low end spec'd NUC to the Mini and claim the NUC is inferior, but if you shop around you can find better equipped NUC's, compare ram and SSD prices, and put together a stellar machine for less than anything Apple offers. What's more as time goes on and things advance, you can replace most of the components as well. IF you really want to compare the two, consider what happens if you purchase a mini with non replaceable storage and the storage goes bad. If it happens to a NUC you put in a new SSD and move on. If it happens to Apple you are stuck. Sure you could go external but then what's the point of buying a compact desktop to begin with? A smart user would buy Apple care just in case, but then you have to factor that into the cost.
I have been using Apple/Mac for a very long time. One thing you fail to point out was that Macs sold 30 years ago were purchased by a niche market of users. It was not a mass produced mainstream product. If you wanted to be in on something new and different it was going to cost you. It was like ordering a custom made suit as opposed to off the rack. If you truly are a long time user you will remember the constant arguments with PC users about being able to do the same thing on a Mac as you could a PC. During that period of time the stereotypical comment was "I don't use a Mac because their software is limited". That was true at some point, but as time went on Apple and their software began to catch up, yet the stereotypical comments continued even to this day. Perceptions, stereotypes, and brand loyalty seems to dictate purchases these days. Today the perception is Apple is superior and everything else is inferior. If you want to play you are going to have to pay. I think that line of thinking makes Apple products better in the minds of the loyal masses, but if you consider value it really exposes their shortsightedness.
Nowadays Apple is mainstream and their prices should reflect that. I see 10 year olds with iPhone XS Max's in their back pocket. The social landscape is littered with MBP users browsing Facebook and checking their emails. They don't need a Pro machine to do what they are doing, but to many it's more important to use Apple. Granted, for a true pro user spending a lot more to run a business makes sense. To my granddaughter or a college freshman not so much.
I love Apple products but I feel the new mini being released with a 128gb of storage is insulting. To upgrade it will cost a lot more than the competition. I don't call that better. I call it brilliant marketing.
I continue to live in an all Apple household, but as prices continue to increase, and you weigh what you get for the money, it is making me look over the fence to see if the grass looks the same or if it's any greener on the other side.
It is still running great and Mojave is the 1st MacOS update my machine has not been able to get. 6 yrs of software support. I will continue to get security/bug fix updates.The battery is still reporting as ‘Good’. Barring an accident or catastrophic hardware event this machine could go on for years. Oh, and not a single virus.
Apple products have always been expensive relative to the market. Given my MBP experience I wouldnt even consider using a non-Macintosh computer. I never imagined I would get near 10yrs out of a machine. Plus, I could probably still sell it for a few hundred dollars.
For me, the real question is when/if my MBP does need to be replaced will I even replace it? It is being used less and less for computing and is mostly used as a place to back up our photos/videos. Even my iPad is collecting dust as the iPhone/Watch/Airpods are so amazing and on me at all times.
Only the grocery store needs to know what is selling, what to reorder and how much to reorder. The customer doesn't need to know and someone analysing the store doesn't need to know.
The analogy is pretty spot on. Only Apple needs to know how much is selling. Everyone else needs to only know how much Apple is making.
Personally, I’ve got a large buy order in now and think there is more pressure to come for the stock.