Well, I bought 5,000 at $16.93 (pre split), and then more recently, another 1,000 at 72. I was thinking of buying more when it dropped to the low 50's, but got busy with other things, and by then it was on the way up again.
To sunilraman -- melgross speaks veracity in these threads, and he is
correct in surmising that the Schmidt gesture is not that big of a deal
financially. The value is in the ripeness of the symbolism.
BTW, Schmidt is not the first to travel down this road. I.e. witness board member
Art Levinson of Genentech. Also a CEO of means, his intrigue about Apple
is genuine despite any (token) AAPL remuneration.
(I know enough folks there who have seen first hand that Genentech's utilization
of literally thousands of Macs in the enterprise has paid off handsomely.
They don't advertise this much, as it is a competitive advantage in biotech.)
Another point: some of us do indeed have supersized AAPL bets!
It would be interesting to approach Dr. Schmidt on the level of, say, the
infamous trader to the Chairman of Salomon Brothers in Michael Lewis' "Liars Poker" --
"One hand, one million dollars, no tears." That the trader, using serious
leverage, could make a well-to-do mogul squirm is testimony to the
Well, I bought 5,000 at $16.93 (pre split), and then more recently, another 1,000 at 72. I was thinking of buying more when it dropped to the low 50's, but got busy with other things, and by then it was on the way up again.
Well done....you must be somewhat pleased!
$22 pre split and $56....but a mangitude less shares.
I think even now AAPL is good value - Zurich is suggesting a target price of $116 (current brokerage firm concensus $93). It wont be long before others raise their targets and the price will follow like it did in 2005. (Not that I know anything about this, except for a healthy paper profit)
$22 pre split and $56....but a mangitude less shares.
I think even now AAPL is good value - Zurich is suggesting a target price of $116 (current brokerage firm concensus $93). It wont be long before others raise their targets and the price will follow like it did in 2005. (Not that I know anything about this, except for a healthy paper profit)
We'll just have to see how it goes. I think the estimates are probably right for the longer term, but I also think they are right about the short term drop. We've lost about 4 points in the last few days. I think that tomorrows closing price will tell if that will continue next week.
If the gov. doesn't open an investigation, that will be well. But if they decide that the info Apple provided is sufficient for them to do so, that will hold the stock back.
This quarters sales and earnings are VERY important.
Not much time for the new, updated iPods to be out there, but computer sales will give us an idea of what the trend will be. Apple really needs desktop sales to grow seriously.
We'll just have to see how it goes. I think the estimates are probably right for the longer term, but I also think they are right about the short term drop. We've lost about 4 points in the last few days. I think that tomorrows closing price will tell if that will continue next week.
If the gov. doesn't open an investigation, that will be well. But if they decide that the info Apple provided is sufficient for them to do so, that will hold the stock back.
This quarters sales and earnings are VERY important.
Not much time for the new, updated iPods to be out there, but computer sales will give us an idea of what the trend will be. Apple really needs desktop sales to grow seriously.
The Zurich report is interseting in that they don't put too much weight on Mac sales - they don't see much growth there. I suspect they are being somewhat conservative. (I think I came across that one over at Mac Observer AFB).
I'd have to say that you must have been very confident to buy in so heavily at $16. It flat lined for so long.
I bought in just after the big crash in 2000. Long wait but still worth it.
The Zurich report is interseting in that they don't put too much weight on Mac sales - they don't see much growth there. I suspect they are being somewhat conservative. (I think I came across that one over at Mac Observer AFB).
I'd have to say that you must have been very confident to buy in so heavily at $16. It flat lined for so long.
I bought in just after the big crash in 2000. Long wait but still worth it.
I bought and sold Apple stock during the late '90's, until it crashed along with most other things in late 1999 - 2000. I did pretty well with it during that time, including before the split and after it as well back then.
When I bought back later, it had already started to rise. I was thinking about it when it was about $11, but waited.
To sunilraman -- melgross speaks veracity in these threads, and he is
correct in surmising that the Schmidt gesture is not that big of a deal
financially. The value is in the ripeness of the symbolism.
BTW, Schmidt is not the first to travel down this road. I.e. witness board member
Art Levinson of Genentech. Also a CEO of means, his intrigue about Apple
is genuine despite any (token) AAPL remuneration.
(I know enough folks there who have seen first hand that Genentech's utilization
of literally thousands of Macs in the enterprise has paid off handsomely.
They don't advertise this much, as it is a competitive advantage in biotech.)
Another point: some of us do indeed have supersized AAPL bets!
It would be interesting to approach Dr. Schmidt on the level of, say, the
infamous trader to the Chairman of Salomon Brothers in Michael Lewis' "Liars Poker" --
"One hand, one million dollars, no tears." That the trader, using serious
leverage, could make a well-to-do mogul squirm is testimony to the
confidence in such stakes.
I think you mean "speaks with veracity", just to nitpick. Well, that's in terms of UK and International English anyway, just like we like to say "I wrote to him the other day" instead of the Amercian English version, "I wrote him the other day".
But Melgross, you mention you have about 6,000 shares? E.Schmidt has almost twice that. Unless you're saying in total you have over 11,000 shares...
My envious nature aside, congratulations to all of you who do have big AAPL chunks in your portfolio. Just remember to stay diversified, and as you get older move to a more conservative portfolio of investments, as capital preservation for retirement and basic income strategy is more the go in later life, than chasing high capital growth.
That's great news about Genentech and Macs. I can imagine the amount of data crunching today that's required for commercial biotech/ molecular biology/ drug development. Can you believe though that the USA is still the major player in Bioinformatics? Way ahead of Europe, Australia, maybe Japan... The biotech/ bioinformatics commercial and academic setups in California alone are totally kickass. I know the guy that headed up a startup, Silicon Genetics in the SF Bay Area, around '99, sold his company to Agilent (HP spinoff) a few years ago.
I think you mean "speaks with veracity", just to nitpick. Well, that's in terms of UK and International English anyway, just like we like to say "I wrote to him the other day" instead of the Amercian English version, "I wrote him the other day".
But Melgross, you mention you have about 6,000 shares? E.Schmidt has almost twice that. Unless you're saying in total you have over 11,000 shares...
My envious nature aside, congratulations to all of you who do have big AAPL chunks in your portfolio. Just remember to stay diversified, and as you get older move to a more conservative portfolio of investments, as capital preservation for retirement and basic income strategy is more the go in later life, than chasing high capital growth.
That's great news about Genentech and Macs. I can imagine the amount of data crunching today that's required for commercial biotech/ molecular biology/ drug development. Can you believe though that the USA is still the major player in Bioinformatics? Way ahead of Europe, Australia, maybe Japan... The biotech/ bioinformatics commercial and academic setups in California alone are totally kickass. I know the guy that headed up a startup, Silicon Genetics in the SF Bay Area, around '99, sold his company to Agilent (HP spinoff) a few years ago.
Actually Sunil, proper American English is pretty much the same as British English.
It isn't any more proper to say "I wrote him..." for us, then it would be for you.
The vernacular differs in both places. But, the vernacular is rarely considered to be correct.
I have 11 thousand. Remember I said that I bought 5 thousand pre-split. And then recently, another thousand.
I would never recommend to anyone that they accumulate volatile investments as a large portion of their portfolio. Volatile includes almost all stocks and mutual funds. In fact, almost any investment that is considered to have high returns can be considered as risky.
The difficulty is that there is an inverse relationship between return and safety.
Only invest what you can afford to lose, in anything approaching medium risk.
Not much time for the new, updated iPods to be out there, but computer sales will give us an idea of what the trend will be. Apple really needs desktop sales to grow seriously.
Otherwise, despite what everyone may or may not say, their desktop strategy would have been proven to be mistaken or a failure.
Otherwise, despite what everyone may or may not say, their desktop strategy would have been proven to be mistaken or a failure.
That's right. Because despite all of the publicity, desktop sale have been disappointing.
The expectation of Mini sales ending up in the millions hasn't happened. Even the iMacs seems to be stuck at much lower levels than expected, at just a few hundred thousand a quarter. The towers have seen declines quarter to quarter, and until the numbers are in, we have no idea how the Mac Pro's are doing.
Considering that the computer division is (still) the lynchpin of Apple's success as a company, this is an area of concern. They can't live mainly on laptop sales, as they generate less periferal sales for both Apple, and its third party partners.
Comments
And you all bitch about boo hooo hoo, Apple Macs are so expensive and stuff, boo hoo hoo. Tsk tsk. Shame on you, shame on you.
I never have.
Well, I bought 5,000 at $16.93 (pre split), and then more recently, another 1,000 at 72. I was thinking of buying more when it dropped to the low 50's, but got busy with other things, and by then it was on the way up again.
To sunilraman -- melgross speaks veracity in these threads, and he is
correct in surmising that the Schmidt gesture is not that big of a deal
financially. The value is in the ripeness of the symbolism.
BTW, Schmidt is not the first to travel down this road. I.e. witness board member
Art Levinson of Genentech. Also a CEO of means, his intrigue about Apple
is genuine despite any (token) AAPL remuneration.
(I know enough folks there who have seen first hand that Genentech's utilization
of literally thousands of Macs in the enterprise has paid off handsomely.
They don't advertise this much, as it is a competitive advantage in biotech.)
Another point: some of us do indeed have supersized AAPL bets!
It would be interesting to approach Dr. Schmidt on the level of, say, the
infamous trader to the Chairman of Salomon Brothers in Michael Lewis' "Liars Poker" --
"One hand, one million dollars, no tears." That the trader, using serious
leverage, could make a well-to-do mogul squirm is testimony to the
confidence in such stakes.
Well, I bought 5,000 at $16.93 (pre split), and then more recently, another 1,000 at 72. I was thinking of buying more when it dropped to the low 50's, but got busy with other things, and by then it was on the way up again.
Well done....you must be somewhat pleased!
$22 pre split and $56....but a mangitude less shares.
I think even now AAPL is good value - Zurich is suggesting a target price of $116 (current brokerage firm concensus $93). It wont be long before others raise their targets and the price will follow like it did in 2005. (Not that I know anything about this, except for a healthy paper profit)
Well done....you must be somewhat pleased!
That would be a fair thing to say.
$22 pre split and $56....but a mangitude less shares.
I think even now AAPL is good value - Zurich is suggesting a target price of $116 (current brokerage firm concensus $93). It wont be long before others raise their targets and the price will follow like it did in 2005. (Not that I know anything about this, except for a healthy paper profit)
We'll just have to see how it goes. I think the estimates are probably right for the longer term, but I also think they are right about the short term drop. We've lost about 4 points in the last few days. I think that tomorrows closing price will tell if that will continue next week.
If the gov. doesn't open an investigation, that will be well. But if they decide that the info Apple provided is sufficient for them to do so, that will hold the stock back.
This quarters sales and earnings are VERY important.
Not much time for the new, updated iPods to be out there, but computer sales will give us an idea of what the trend will be. Apple really needs desktop sales to grow seriously.
That would be a fair thing to say.
We'll just have to see how it goes. I think the estimates are probably right for the longer term, but I also think they are right about the short term drop. We've lost about 4 points in the last few days. I think that tomorrows closing price will tell if that will continue next week.
If the gov. doesn't open an investigation, that will be well. But if they decide that the info Apple provided is sufficient for them to do so, that will hold the stock back.
This quarters sales and earnings are VERY important.
Not much time for the new, updated iPods to be out there, but computer sales will give us an idea of what the trend will be. Apple really needs desktop sales to grow seriously.
The Zurich report is interseting in that they don't put too much weight on Mac sales - they don't see much growth there. I suspect they are being somewhat conservative. (I think I came across that one over at Mac Observer AFB).
I'd have to say that you must have been very confident to buy in so heavily at $16. It flat lined for so long.
I bought in just after the big crash in 2000. Long wait but still worth it.
The Zurich report is interseting in that they don't put too much weight on Mac sales - they don't see much growth there. I suspect they are being somewhat conservative. (I think I came across that one over at Mac Observer AFB).
I'd have to say that you must have been very confident to buy in so heavily at $16. It flat lined for so long.
I bought in just after the big crash in 2000. Long wait but still worth it.
I bought and sold Apple stock during the late '90's, until it crashed along with most other things in late 1999 - 2000. I did pretty well with it during that time, including before the split and after it as well back then.
When I bought back later, it had already started to rise. I was thinking about it when it was about $11, but waited.
To sunilraman -- melgross speaks veracity in these threads, and he is
correct in surmising that the Schmidt gesture is not that big of a deal
financially. The value is in the ripeness of the symbolism.
BTW, Schmidt is not the first to travel down this road. I.e. witness board member
Art Levinson of Genentech. Also a CEO of means, his intrigue about Apple
is genuine despite any (token) AAPL remuneration.
(I know enough folks there who have seen first hand that Genentech's utilization
of literally thousands of Macs in the enterprise has paid off handsomely.
They don't advertise this much, as it is a competitive advantage in biotech.)
Another point: some of us do indeed have supersized AAPL bets!
It would be interesting to approach Dr. Schmidt on the level of, say, the
infamous trader to the Chairman of Salomon Brothers in Michael Lewis' "Liars Poker" --
"One hand, one million dollars, no tears." That the trader, using serious
leverage, could make a well-to-do mogul squirm is testimony to the
confidence in such stakes.
I think you mean "speaks with veracity", just to nitpick. Well, that's in terms of UK and International English anyway, just like we like to say "I wrote to him the other day" instead of the Amercian English version, "I wrote him the other day".
But Melgross, you mention you have about 6,000 shares? E.Schmidt has almost twice that. Unless you're saying in total you have over 11,000 shares...
My envious nature aside, congratulations to all of you who do have big AAPL chunks in your portfolio. Just remember to stay diversified, and as you get older move to a more conservative portfolio of investments, as capital preservation for retirement and basic income strategy is more the go in later life, than chasing high capital growth.
That's great news about Genentech and Macs. I can imagine the amount of data crunching today that's required for commercial biotech/ molecular biology/ drug development. Can you believe though that the USA is still the major player in Bioinformatics? Way ahead of Europe, Australia, maybe Japan... The biotech/ bioinformatics commercial and academic setups in California alone are totally kickass. I know the guy that headed up a startup, Silicon Genetics in the SF Bay Area, around '99, sold his company to Agilent (HP spinoff) a few years ago.
Well, he has about the same amount I have...
Nice. 8)
I think you mean "speaks with veracity", just to nitpick. Well, that's in terms of UK and International English anyway, just like we like to say "I wrote to him the other day" instead of the Amercian English version, "I wrote him the other day".
But Melgross, you mention you have about 6,000 shares? E.Schmidt has almost twice that. Unless you're saying in total you have over 11,000 shares...
My envious nature aside, congratulations to all of you who do have big AAPL chunks in your portfolio. Just remember to stay diversified, and as you get older move to a more conservative portfolio of investments, as capital preservation for retirement and basic income strategy is more the go in later life, than chasing high capital growth.
That's great news about Genentech and Macs. I can imagine the amount of data crunching today that's required for commercial biotech/ molecular biology/ drug development. Can you believe though that the USA is still the major player in Bioinformatics? Way ahead of Europe, Australia, maybe Japan... The biotech/ bioinformatics commercial and academic setups in California alone are totally kickass. I know the guy that headed up a startup, Silicon Genetics in the SF Bay Area, around '99, sold his company to Agilent (HP spinoff) a few years ago.
Actually Sunil, proper American English is pretty much the same as British English.
It isn't any more proper to say "I wrote him..." for us, then it would be for you.
The vernacular differs in both places. But, the vernacular is rarely considered to be correct.
I have 11 thousand. Remember I said that I bought 5 thousand pre-split. And then recently, another thousand.
I would never recommend to anyone that they accumulate volatile investments as a large portion of their portfolio. Volatile includes almost all stocks and mutual funds. In fact, almost any investment that is considered to have high returns can be considered as risky.
The difficulty is that there is an inverse relationship between return and safety.
Only invest what you can afford to lose, in anything approaching medium risk.
Not much time for the new, updated iPods to be out there, but computer sales will give us an idea of what the trend will be. Apple really needs desktop sales to grow seriously.
Otherwise, despite what everyone may or may not say, their desktop strategy would have been proven to be mistaken or a failure.
Otherwise, despite what everyone may or may not say, their desktop strategy would have been proven to be mistaken or a failure.
That's right. Because despite all of the publicity, desktop sale have been disappointing.
The expectation of Mini sales ending up in the millions hasn't happened. Even the iMacs seems to be stuck at much lower levels than expected, at just a few hundred thousand a quarter. The towers have seen declines quarter to quarter, and until the numbers are in, we have no idea how the Mac Pro's are doing.
Considering that the computer division is (still) the lynchpin of Apple's success as a company, this is an area of concern. They can't live mainly on laptop sales, as they generate less periferal sales for both Apple, and its third party partners.