Volume will exceed 100 million shares today. Each share is approximately $150. That is $15 billion dollars will be used to buy AAPL in one day! This is mind boggling.
Volume will exceed 100 million shares today. Each share is approximately $150. That is $15 billion dollars will be used to buy AAPL in one day! This is mind boggling.
The companies themselves whose stock is traded get none of it. In essence it's rich people playing with paper and assuming they understand the market and "win" because they're smart.
Back in the 80's when we had another illogical climb in stock prices over an extended period I had two friends who made their stock investment picks one week by throwing darts at a financial page from the local newspaper. Seriously, something like a dozen stocks total.
Both won big just like everyone did at the time. I did too, invested in an aviation company and started several other businesses from my "winnings" with two of those still successfully operating today.
Then there came that day.... Rinse & repeat every 10 years or so.
It’s Apple, what more can anyone say? According to Wall Street the company is a failure. I had to order my financial advisor to put some AAPL in my portfolio. He did so reluctantly.
No financial advisor bats 1.000. Warren Buffett doesn’t either.
A world class investor will be right maybe 70% of the time. The great ones know when to get out. If Investment B has a more promising perceived future than Investment A, maybe it’s worth cutting back on your position in the latter.
Ultimately the decision lies with the client. It’s their money after all.
Apple absolutely KILLS IT in the midst of a pandemic and global supply constraints… and gets panned.
Riiiiiight.
No matter how awesome Apple is, how rock solid the business models, how perpetually successful the products are - bolstered by a company culture that fosters continuous innovation snd refinement, cut seems they’ll never shake the old guard “journalists” and Wall Street codgers that can’t allow the company to escape the “little upstart” box that they’d crafted for Apple in their minds decades ago.
But Apple goes through these cycles. They kill it and bank. Then they kill it and inexplicably lose. Boom. Tons of new investors. Then Apple kills it and banks again, swelling in finances and shareholders.
Repeat ad nauseam.
Apple is positioning themselves to be in full control. If they wanted to beat Meta and Twitter at social, they totally could right now. Ping was a disaster, but that was early days of understanding what people want. And the harsh reality is that people are so full of themselves that they want more of themselves and better ways to present the best version of themselves to the world, more self validation and more ways to get others paying attention to them with tools to express THEIR personal creativity. Apple has the infrastructure social networks could only dream of. Same with search. IF they wanted. But one of Apples strengths is saying “no” to opportunities not in their DNA.
Sure, maps was “forstall’d” years ago at launch. But these days, it’s preferred over Google maps by many. If Apple would only make it simple to embed in your company or personal website, it would take off like wildfire.
Apple could really shock people by coming out with an 8k x 5k 36” ultrawide iMac pro and blow people away - including manufacturers of such screens which are usually subpar in many ways.
So many things they can do with the hardware snd software iron grip they now wield.
But the story will always be the same. Kill it and bank. Kill it again and suffer the wrath of the pencil pushers. Then bank again, etc.
amd all Apple has to do to stay on top is to stay focused on building the best products on the planet.
AMZN is a better buying opportunity. It's way off it's 52 week high and it's down 4% in after hours trading. FB is also way off its 52 week high also it is mostly unmoved today in after hours.
AAPL is still very close to its 52 week high. NVDA, NFLX, and TSLA are all trading near their 52 week highs.
Apple is not doing itself any favors by withholding guidance.
We are in a Pandemic, there is a chip shortage raging and lots of known unpredictability. In my opinion, They would be derelict to give guidance under these circumstances.
Apple is not doing itself any favors by withholding guidance.
It’s not withholding guidance, it’s just not playing this highly questionable and petty game.
The people who are best suited to assess a company’s upcoming prospects are the people who run the company in question.
It is reasonable for investors to have some sort of guidance. No one can predict the future with 100% certainty but for sure Apple has their own internal expectations. Today the market punished AAPL valuation because Apple withheld their outlook.
Apple’s gross margin number shows they had a very, Very, VERY good idea of what they anticipated internally.
Remember that most SEC regulations are there to protect the investor. Potential investors should have a reasonably clear view into what they are getting into BEFORE they make the decision to invest or not.
Remember that most of these regulations take shape after major violations occur. Today’s investing environment is different than what existed in the Nineteenth Century.
Let's say one of your buddies is opening a coffee shop and asks if you want to invest $1000. Wouldn't your first question be "What am I going to get in return?" What if he says "$2000" and the coffee shop goes bankrupt in six months? What if he takes his kids to Disneyland and never opens the coffee shop? Or his mistress to Vegas for the weekend? Or the ROI is $1750? Are you still friends?
When a company LIES they can end up like Theranos.
If you were a Theranos investor you should be hopping mad.
It's very simple AAPL is overvalued, and has been for quite a while. The same is true of lots of other companies, the stock market does not reflect the real-world economy.
It’s Apple, what more can anyone say? According to Wall Street the company is a failure. I had to order my financial advisor to put some AAPL in my portfolio. He did so reluctantly.
You’re a lot smarter than your financial advisor.
I had some money at UBS for a while with an advisor who over the phone was questioning why I was so heavy into AAPL, who he called “a media darling” (lol) and asked if I had heard about a company called Qualcomm (lololololol). Moved to Scottrade (now absorbed into TD Ameritrade) and at some point got a call from them talking about how I was very “tech top heavy” in my portfolio and was selling financial advisor services. Needless to say, I declined.
Around 10 yrs ago considered moving from self-managed to allowing someone with Franklin to manage my retirement portfolio. She did indeed notice how heavily I was weighted with AAPL and suggested taking some of my winnings off the table.
I regarded and still regard her as pretty sharp. She put together some recommendations for me, which seemed pretty solid. Unfortunately I no longer have her paperwork, I am curious how I would have done had I taken her advice. I know for sure I would be crying over how much I had given away for 'safety' over the past 10 years.
Long since Nov. 17, 2000. A day that will iive in famy for me.
It’s Apple, what more can anyone say? According to Wall Street the company is a failure. I had to order my financial advisor to put some AAPL in my portfolio. He did so reluctantly.
My 401k holdings are about the same value as my AAPL stock. The AAPL stock was purchased between 2003 and 2008 with an initial investment of ~15K. On average I have put in 15K per year into my 401K since 2002. Whilst the 401K has done okay it pales into insignificance compared to the performance of AAPL. Of course there has been ups and downs but the same can be said for my 401K funds. If I had listened to my financial advisors I would have half of the value in my retirement fund. Sure it is risky to have a lot in one stock but since it really only cost me 15K it has been worth the risk. Also I know Apple's performance and stability very well and whilst the market has knee jerk reactions, I have yet to see any signs that Apple is faltering in their approach. If anything, innovations like AppleSilicon, continuing iPhone success, growth of the services business and wearables makes me more bullish than ever.
Long since 11/17/2000. I wish I could claim to be an investment genius but really it was a hunch that Steve Jobs would do some amazing things at Apple. I bet just shy of $3000. The sum was the amount of money I was willing to risk losing, though pretty sure I would not lose it.
I never imagined that Jobs (and his successor) would be this successful. That initial $3000 investment turned into something like $1.3 million, not accounting for dividend returns. In 2009 or 2010 I added 80 shares which are now something like 2,240 shares or about 20% of my total stake in AAPL. Hardly a shabby return but nothing like the tens of thousands of percent return on that 2000 purchase.
I had at least $10,000 available that I could have put into AAPL in 2000... if only I'd put it all in... would have retired a while ago and been content to draw off the account without caring much about the early withdrawal penalty.
The fourth smartest thing I ever did (the first three are the times I bought AAPL)... mostly forgetting all about my stake during its meteoric climb in the first decade or so of this century thanks to iPod and later iPhone. I can easily envision circumstances where if i'd paid too much attention to my gains, I might have sold off some part of it, might have decided to take my profits off the table.
Every three months I get a dividend payment worth about 75% of my initial investment/a bit shy of 20% of my total investment in absolute (non-inflation-adjusted) terms. Every dollar I get from them has been 100%, pure profit for many years now and as well there's the value on paper of my entire stake. Even if I never earn a dollar again from anything else, AAPL has ensured I'm set for the rest of my life.
I also have used Apple computers throughout my career, it is absolutely no exaggeration to say that my fortunes have been figuratively and literally been intimately intertwined with Apple almost my entire working career. Not an Apple bigot but definitely an Apple fan for life, come hell or high water.
A lot of people thought that Apple would be much less impacted by the chip shortage and supply chain issues than everyone else because of Tim Cook's legendary experience in this area as well as Apple's ability to negotiate to be first in line. Seriously, I have seen comments on various blogs and sites bragging on this idea, but Apple indicated that they were impacted like everybody else, if not necessarily to the degree of everybody else.
Really, what do you all want from the media and the markets on this anyway? It isn't their job to be Apple boosters and cheerleaders. If a company misses their projections, their stock is going to fall. For the folks who claimed "but Apple broke records and if the Wall Street predictions were off that was their mistake and Apple shouldn't take a hit for that" ... please add 2+2. The Wall Street folks PREDICTED that Apple would break records. Look, if the record is 5, the prediction was 10 and then yes, they predicted that Apple would set a record.
Guys, look. Intel met their projects and their stock dropped anyway. Why? Because - like Apple - Intel stated that they were impacted by the chip shortage and would be impacted for the foreseeable future. And because - like Apple - though Intel made a ton on some product lines (CPUs for servers and data centers like Apple on services) they made less than expected on others (PCs, like Apple made less than expected on the iPhone 13). In addition, while Intel met their projections and had YoY growth, AMD's growth was speculated to be much higher (which turned out to be true).
So no, the markets aren't being unfair to Apple and neither are the article writers. Good grief, the people on their site are acting like the commenters on blogs of sports teams who never win championships. Everything other than unadulterated praise and unconditional love gets treated as a slight. Every positive comment about a competitor is proof that the world is against you.
Are you new here? This BS happens EVERY quarter, well before the chip shortage.
Analysts predict Apple will hit some ridiculous target and when they miss it by 1 billion (still amazing considering the target was ridiculous in the first place) stock falls and the same analysts scream “sell sell sell!”
It’s Apple, what more can anyone say? According to Wall Street the company is a failure. I had to order my financial advisor to put some AAPL in my portfolio. He did so reluctantly.
You’re a lot smarter than your financial advisor.
I had some money at UBS for a while with an advisor who over the phone was questioning why I was so heavy into AAPL, who he called “a media darling” (lol) and asked if I had heard about a company called Qualcomm (lololololol). Moved to Scottrade (now absorbed into TD Ameritrade) and at some point got a call from them talking about how I was very “tech top heavy” in my portfolio and was selling financial advisor services. Needless to say, I declined.
Every publicly held company is assessed under different expectations. Some companies are expected to have even higher YoY growth. Most are not.
I realize these concepts are very difficult for many readers at tech news sites to grasp (and not just AI, MacRumors, Macworld).
And these expectations change over time. Do you remember Apple in 1997? I guarantee you that the Street did not expect 30% YoY growth from AAPL in the mid-Nineties.
Is it even remotely plausible that the expectations were erroneous?
Is it remotely plausible that the elections should have considered public statements by Tim Cook that clearly stated that Apple was impacted by global supply chain issues, albeit not to the extent of most companies?
Is it remotely plausible that failure to take into consideration open source information is, in fact a failure on the part of the analysts setting the expectations? If this is, even remotely, plausible, then would it not mean that those analysts failed their clients?
At what point does the failure to correctly analyze available data become malpractice on the part of the analysts?
Comments
Back in the 80's when we had another illogical climb in stock prices over an extended period I had two friends who made their stock investment picks one week by throwing darts at a financial page from the local newspaper. Seriously, something like a dozen stocks total.
Both won big just like everyone did at the time. I did too, invested in an aviation company and started several other businesses from my "winnings" with two of those still successfully operating today.
Then there came that day.... Rinse & repeat every 10 years or so.
A world class investor will be right maybe 70% of the time. The great ones know when to get out. If Investment B has a more promising perceived future than Investment A, maybe it’s worth cutting back on your position in the latter.
Ultimately the decision lies with the client. It’s their money after all.
amd all Apple has to do to stay on top is to stay focused on building the best products on the planet.
It is reasonable for investors to have some sort of guidance. No one can predict the future with 100% certainty but for sure Apple has their own internal expectations. Today the market punished AAPL valuation because Apple withheld their outlook.
Apple’s gross margin number shows they had a very, Very, VERY good idea of what they anticipated internally.
Remember that most SEC regulations are there to protect the investor. Potential investors should have a reasonably clear view into what they are getting into BEFORE they make the decision to invest or not.
Let's say one of your buddies is opening a coffee shop and asks if you want to invest $1000. Wouldn't your first question be "What am I going to get in return?" What if he says "$2000" and the coffee shop goes bankrupt in six months? What if he takes his kids to Disneyland and never opens the coffee shop? Or his mistress to Vegas for the weekend? Or the ROI is $1750? Are you still friends?
If you were a Theranos investor you should be hopping mad.
It's very simple AAPL is overvalued, and has been for quite a while. The same is true of lots of other companies, the stock market does not reflect the real-world economy.
I regarded and still regard her as pretty sharp. She put together some recommendations for me, which seemed pretty solid. Unfortunately I no longer have her paperwork, I am curious how I would have done had I taken her advice. I know for sure I would be crying over how much I had given away for 'safety' over the past 10 years.
Long since Nov. 17, 2000. A day that will iive in famy for me.
I never imagined that Jobs (and his successor) would be this successful. That initial $3000 investment turned into something like $1.3 million, not accounting for dividend returns. In 2009 or 2010 I added 80 shares which are now something like 2,240 shares or about 20% of my total stake in AAPL. Hardly a shabby return but nothing like the tens of thousands of percent return on that 2000 purchase.
I had at least $10,000 available that I could have put into AAPL in 2000... if only I'd put it all in... would have retired a while ago and been content to draw off the account without caring much about the early withdrawal penalty.
The fourth smartest thing I ever did (the first three are the times I bought AAPL)... mostly forgetting all about my stake during its meteoric climb in the first decade or so of this century thanks to iPod and later iPhone. I can easily envision circumstances where if i'd paid too much attention to my gains, I might have sold off some part of it, might have decided to take my profits off the table.
Every three months I get a dividend payment worth about 75% of my initial investment/a bit shy of 20% of my total investment in absolute (non-inflation-adjusted) terms. Every dollar I get from them has been 100%, pure profit for many years now and as well there's the value on paper of my entire stake. Even if I never earn a dollar again from anything else, AAPL has ensured I'm set for the rest of my life.
I also have used Apple computers throughout my career, it is absolutely no exaggeration to say that my fortunes have been figuratively and literally been intimately intertwined with Apple almost my entire working career. Not an Apple bigot but definitely an Apple fan for life, come hell or high water.
#humblebragging
Analysts predict Apple will hit some ridiculous target and when they miss it by 1 billion (still amazing considering the target was ridiculous in the first place) stock falls and the same analysts scream “sell sell sell!”
Is it remotely plausible that failure to take into consideration open source information is, in fact a failure on the part of the analysts setting the expectations? If this is, even remotely, plausible, then would it not mean that those analysts failed their clients?
At what point does the failure to correctly analyze available data become malpractice on the part of the analysts?