Apple stock

[magnifier661]

Laugh at the PER comparison. It makes you look like you don't have a clue.

The big difference is that PER is meant to compare any two players, any season, etc. While PE ratio is truly valid when comparing companies in the same industry.

BlazerCaravan got it right.

Denny, you are the one that doesn't have a clue. You tossed "Book Value"; then argued that Amazon is growing, etc. Then I replied that if Apple shared the same "book value to actual sell price" like Google; it's a $485 share; which you blatantly ignored. Then you tried saying amazon is growing, unlike Apple; which I immediately showed apple is growing 8 times faster than amazon without any debt.

Seems you are the one lacking the knowledge in this matter.

BTW.. The "PER" comparison is actually you using the "Book Value"

 

[Denny Crane]

LMAO!!!!! Yes go with the drop after you just said that the stock market is emotionally driven. I am seriously thinking about going all in. Would you like a wager on the stock price? I will bet $1,000 that Apple will get to $500 after the next quarter.

The $700 price in Sept/Oct 2012 was emotionally driven, no? Looks like the bloom's off that rose.

The stock has had upticks all the way down. If you think you can time one of those, you're the world's greatest stock picker. Go for it.

I see a ~$400 price and see way more room to go down than up. But I'm the conservative type investor that doesn't like to speculate on a stock with a chart looking so down as Apple's.

 

[magnifier661]

The $700 price in Sept/Oct 2012 was emotionally driven, no? Looks like the bloom's off that rose.

The stock has had upticks all the way down. If you think you can time one of those, you're the world's greatest stock picker. Go for it.

I see a ~$400 price and see way more room to go down than up. But I'm the conservative type investor that doesn't like to speculate on a stock with a chart looking so down as Apple's.

The $700 price was high. I agree. I never justified that price. I said $500 and I stand by that. Do you want to wager or not?

 

[Denny Crane]

Denny, you are the one that doesn't have a clue. You tossed "Book Value"; then argued that Amazon is growing, etc. Then I replied that if Apple shared the same "book value to actual sell price" like Google; it's a $485 share; which you blatantly ignored. Then you tried saying amazon is growing, unlike Apple; which I immediately showed apple is growing 8 times faster than amazon without any debt.

Seems you are the one lacking the knowledge in this matter.

BTW.. The "PER" comparison is actually you using the "Book Value"

No. Book value translates across any sort of company. An oil company's book value is what you have after adding the sale of all the oil wells and land and other assets to the company's bank account (cash) and paying off the debt. Similarly for Apple, its book value is what you have after selling its assets, plus its cash, and after paying off the debt.

I didn't say Apple isn't growing. You make stuff up a lot.

I'm not talking up Amazon. Its stock is due for a nice tumble, too. However, they are players in tablets (kindle), cloud computing (AWS), and streaming video (Prime instant video) - all of these are hot growth sectors.

 

[magnifier661]

No. Book value translates across any sort of company. An oil company's book value is what you have after adding the sale of all the oil wells and land and other assets to the company's bank account (cash) and paying off the debt. Similarly for Apple, its book value is what you have after selling its assets, plus its cash, and after paying off the debt.

I didn't say Apple isn't growing. You make stuff up a lot.

I'm not talking up Amazon. Its stock is due for a nice tumble, too. However, they are players in tablets (kindle), cloud computing (AWS), and streaming video (Prime instant video) - all of these are hot growth sectors.

Never said you "said apple isn't growing", but what you did say is amazon is growing, which justifies their price. But you ignored apple's 8 times growth of amazon and don't account for that being a factor for apple's price.

 

[Denny Crane]

Then you tried saying amazon is growing, unlike Apple; which I immediately showed apple is growing 8 times faster than amazon without any debt.

You certainly did suggest I said Apple isn't growing.

http://beta.fool.com/dalalsid/2013/02/01/rethinking-apple-and-amazon-all-about-the-cash/23073/

Discusses why they see Amazon stock going up while Apple's goes down.

 

[magnifier661]

You certainly did suggest I said Apple isn't growing.

http://beta.fool.com/dalalsid/2013/02/01/rethinking-apple-and-amazon-all-about-the-cash/23073/

Discusses why they see Amazon stock going up while Apple's goes down.

Hmmm... The suggestion that apple is losing marketshare but increasing profits is a bit of an anomaly no? The issue with Apple and it's excess of cash is they want to make sure their investments are for good. Maybe the opportunity to buy out a company is in their foreseeable future. They also had the lawsuits with Samsung that most companies want to keep cash on hand, just in case the trial goes south.

Regardless, Apple is still the most efficient and profitable company in the tech industry. After the dust settles, it's going to be the juggernaut it once was again.

Still waiting on your wager agreement. You sound so sure that Apple will drop and I'm sure apple goes to $500. Will you take the bet? I mean you still win if apple doesn't reach $500 by next quarter.

 

[Denny Crane]

Sounds to me like you think buying stocks is a wager of sorts. Well it is. Legalized gambling for suckers like you and me.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/valuetrap.asp

Definition of 'Value Trap'
A stock that appears to be cheap because the stock has been trading at low multiples of earnings, cash flow or book value for an extended time period. Stock traps attract investors who are looking for a bargain because these stocks are inexpensive. The trap springs when investors buy into the company at low prices and the stock never improves. Trading that occurs at low multiples of earnings, cash flow or book value for long periods of time might indicate that the company or the entire sector is in trouble, and that stock prices may not move higher.

Investopedia explains 'Value Trap'
Companies, and even sectors, can be doomed, because of situations such as the inability to survive competition, the inability to generate substantial and consistent profits, the lack of new products or earnings growth, or ineffective management. Often, a value trap appears to be such a good deal that investors become confused when the stock fails to perform. As with any investment decision, thorough research and evaluation is recommended before investing in any company that appears cheap when reviewing its relevant performance metrics.

 

[magnifier661]

Sounds to me like you think buying stocks is a wager of sorts. Well it is. Legalized gambling for suckers like you and me.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/v/valuetrap.asp

Definition of 'Value Trap'
A stock that appears to be cheap because the stock has been trading at low multiples of earnings, cash flow or book value for an extended time period. Stock traps attract investors who are looking for a bargain because these stocks are inexpensive. The trap springs when investors buy into the company at low prices and the stock never improves. Trading that occurs at low multiples of earnings, cash flow or book value for long periods of time might indicate that the company or the entire sector is in trouble, and that stock prices may not move higher.

Investopedia explains 'Value Trap'
Companies, and even sectors, can be doomed, because of situations such as the inability to survive competition, the inability to generate substantial and consistent profits, the lack of new products or earnings growth, or ineffective management. Often, a value trap appears to be such a good deal that investors become confused when the stock fails to perform. As with any investment decision, thorough research and evaluation is recommended before investing in any company that appears cheap when reviewing its relevant performance metrics.

It really is gambling because in a normal world of business, this type of evaluation is seriously off. A poor man's evaluation is 5x gross sales; which would put apple in a $1,200 per share price range.

When I look at apple, I am looking at what they have to offer. They are one of the best marketing gurus in tech. Their storefront is being copied by Best Buy. They are a revenue making machine.

And in all seriousness, what have they invented? Nothing really. I take the joke in the 80's regarding the Japanese. They didn't invent the car, they just found a way to make better and more efficient.

I'm thinking the next innovation should be a iDok for a car. Bascially giving the car owner all the benefits of SIRI and the ease of use of the OS for the driver. Google is trying to break into this market. If apple used their marketing power, they would end Google's parade.

 

[Denny Crane]

The Newton, iPhone, iPad, Macintosh, etc., were all quite innovative. I'd call it innovative that Apple got real Unix on peoples' desktops and on their laptops. The iPhone and iPad are real inventions that are distinct from the alternatives of the time.

The only rumors I'm seeing about any new apple product is the iWatch. A bit of hype and suggestion that Apple fans will buy it in decent numbers. Not long on details of what it actually is.

 

[magnifier661]

The Newton, iPhone, iPad, Macintosh, etc., were all quite innovative. I'd call it innovative that Apple got real Unix on peoples' desktops and on their laptops. The iPhone and iPad are real inventions that are distinct from the alternatives of the time.

The only rumors I'm seeing about any new apple product is the iWatch. A bit of hype and suggestion that Apple fans will buy it in decent numbers. Not long on details of what it actually is.

I just don't think the iWatch is their style. It's something Microsoft would do. I really think the iCar or iDock for the car is ingenious because it will get redundant sales from their existing customers. I mean so what if you have an iPhone, you don't have the car dock!

With the watch, they are competing with themselves. Why would someone want an iPhone, when they have an iwatch? 51% of their revenue comes from the iPhone. They have zero revenue from the auto industry.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Another question: why does Apple have to innovate in order to have a higher stock price? This seems to be the "narrative" but lots of very successful companies do very little innovating (Samsung, for example).

 

[magnifier661]

Another question: why does Apple have to innovate in order to have a higher stock price? This seems to be the "narrative" but lots of very successful companies do very little innovating (Samsung, for example).

Well technically not to justify a share price; but they need to innovate so they are always being the company other companies want to be. They must keep their status quo as being the coolest pieces of equipment you can own. Innovation gets you there.

Apple could ride the coattails of iphone and ipad for the next 5-6 years without innovating a damn thing and still probably make a killing. But if they sit too complacent then they will get passed up. Look at Sony....

 

[magnifier661]

Another plus could be apple signing license contracts to the automotive industry for the "SIRI" feature. Basically do the Bill Gates (IBM) to the automotive industry.

They develop software that diagnoses the vehicles, has a decent conversation with the driver, etc. It wouldn't require much of hardware either. And it would be cool as fuck to see the apple logo on the start up when I start my car!

 

[Denny Crane]

Another question: why does Apple have to innovate in order to have a higher stock price? This seems to be the "narrative" but lots of very successful companies do very little innovating (Samsung, for example).

Samsung sure does innovate.

http://news.yahoo.com/samsung-elect...ebate-over-innovation-110636096--finance.html

"Samsung keeps investing in R&D. They've boosted their smartphone R&D workforce to 25,000 or so from less than 20,000, and I think they have an exciting product lineup ready, probably in the second half, to upend the market," said Lee Do-hoon, an analyst at RBS.

That is a significant departure for a company which used to tear apart a Sony television in 1970s to reverse engineer rivals' products.

Samsung finally overtook Sony to become the world's top TV maker in 2006, largely aided by slim designs and super-thin displays produced as a result of aggressive capital investment.

By contrast, Samsung's mobile devices business now generates 70 percent of its total revenue.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Well technically not to justify a share price; but they need to innovate so they are always being the company other companies want to be. They must keep their status quo as being the coolest pieces of equipment you can own. Innovation gets you there.

Apple could ride the coattails of iphone and ipad for the next 5-6 years without innovating a damn thing and still probably make a killing. But if they sit too complacent then they will get passed up. Look at Sony....

Well hell, Apple could give away every product they make for free for 10 years and still have money in the bank.

As for the iWatch, it'd be a symbiotic device like the iPod was to the Mac. It's also right in Apple's wheelhouse: you have a nascent industry (wearable computing) that has some early players (Pebble, etc.) that are hacky but okay. Apple can come in and make their offering that much better without being Too Good, and cool to People Who Aren't Nerds. Apple is as much a fashion company as it is a tech company (shades of Nike, here). An actual piece of fashion (a watch) might be the perfect melding of their design sense and their technology sense.

To me the iWatch is a good fit for them, provided it does things other smart watches can't do, or do some subset of that feature list better than anyone else. Perfect "it just works" system-level melding with the iPhone/Mac ecosystem is essential, and something they can do that watches like The Pebble can't.

 

[magnifier661]

Another innovation could be the iCloud working with the cars. Basically you can purchase a song and have it downloaded to your vehicle like it would to a computer or iPhone. You can get emails and pictures too I guess. What changes is maybe the license is $50 per vehicle.

Sell 1 million vehicles and you have $50 million in an entirely new revenue stream!

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Samsung sure does innovate.

http://news.yahoo.com/samsung-elect...ebate-over-innovation-110636096--finance.html

"Samsung keeps investing in R&D. They've boosted their smartphone R&D workforce to 25,000 or so from less than 20,000, and I think they have an exciting product lineup ready, probably in the second half, to upend the market," said Lee Do-hoon, an analyst at RBS.

That is a significant departure for a company which used to tear apart a Sony television in 1970s to reverse engineer rivals' products.

Samsung finally overtook Sony to become the world's top TV maker in 2006, largely aided by slim designs and super-thin displays produced as a result of aggressive capital investment.

By contrast, Samsung's mobile devices business now generates 70 percent of its total revenue.

As Apple has taught us, being innovative year to year and generating a ton of profits year to year aren't 100% correlated.

Samsung has used its position as an Apple supplier to get a leg up on other Android smartphone makers; they are indeed the farthest along because they were partners. But I'm not sure their cash cow (smartphones) are terribly innovative in and of themselves. I guess there's a slippery definition of "innovative" that we're disagreeing on.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Another innovation could be the iCloud working with the cars. Basically you can purchase a song and have it downloaded to your vehicle like it would to a computer or iPhone. You can get emails and pictures too I guess. What changes is maybe the license is $50 per vehicle.

Sell 1 million vehicles and you have $50 million in an entirely new revenue stream!

Dude, have you even bothered looking at the random car partnerships Apple has with BMW and the like?

 

[magnifier661]

Dude, have you even bothered looking at the random car partnerships Apple has with BMW and the like?

Yes, but I am trying to get the ball moving already!

 

[Denny Crane]

I want a star trek communicator.

 

[magnifier661]

I want a star trek communicator.

LMAO!!!!!!!! Speaking of Trek. How you like the new movies? I wasn't that impressed with the last one, but the new one really looks awesome!

 

[BlazerCaravan]

I want a star trek communicator.

I'm a little surprised there isn't a bluetooth in-ear-monitor and badge set like that now.

 

[porkchopexpress]

Another plus could be apple signing license contracts to the automotive industry for the "SIRI" feature. Basically do the Bill Gates (IBM) to the automotive industry.

They develop software that diagnoses the vehicles, has a decent conversation with the driver, etc. It wouldn't require much of hardware either. And it would be cool as fuck to see the apple logo on the start up when I start my car!

You mean like this?
[video]http://www.youtube.com/user/Chevrolet?v=g4aVDp-OQaA[/video]

 

[magnifier661]

You mean like this?
[video]http://www.youtube.com/user/Chevrolet?v=g4aVDp-OQaA[/video]

But in that scenario, it's integrated to your existing phone. I want the day when the cars themselves have the OS installed. You wont need a phone in this scenario.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Why sell one device when you can sell two?

 

[Denny Crane]

As Apple has taught us, being innovative year to year and generating a ton of profits year to year aren't 100% correlated.

Samsung has used its position as an Apple supplier to get a leg up on other Android smartphone makers; they are indeed the farthest along because they were partners. But I'm not sure their cash cow (smartphones) are terribly innovative in and of themselves. I guess there's a slippery definition of "innovative" that we're disagreeing on.

What apple has taught us is that failure to continually innovate leads to profits from optimization of processes and decreasing stock prices.

Apple innovated with the iPhone by combining a lot of neat and useful technologies. Of interest for our discussion, perhaps, is the potentiometer that allows software to detect the phone being rotated or shaken. Think about the experience without the phone automatically switching between portrait and landscape display by simply rotating the phone orientation.

The Samsung Galaxy 4 has a sort of motion sensor that detects when people are actually looking at the camera part of the phone. A way to start and stop recording, among other things. It remains to be seen how useful the feature is, but it may well be.

Would you consider taking a dual core processor version of a phone an innovation?

Apple is likely to start making cheesy plastic cheapo iPhones to compete. That's not innovation, but taking a giant step backward.

And I don't think Apple is so much a fashion statement. I buy apple products because the operating systems are great, the apps work great, and the packaging adds a lot to the experience. For example, I've owned laptops for a couple decades now and rarely actually carried them around and used them. Until I got a macbook.

 

[Denny Crane]

Where I see things going is super tight integration.

You get a phone and it works great for its size. It does your voice and data calling and provides wifi. From there, your communicator badge, tablet, eyeglasses, watch, etc., all talk wifi to the phone.

Why do you need wifi/internet/calling ability on your phone and tablet?

Once you get this level of integration, then health monitors and even devices that monitor what you eat are trivial.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Sure, but Apple's hardware has also always been the prettiest around (discounting the Lost Years of the mid-90's through 2007). This is not a coincidence. Great hardware and a rock-solid OS get you most of the way there, but you have to sell the damn thing, and a luxurious look helps justify the higher price (even if the parts themselves justify it behind the scenes).

 

[BlazerCaravan]

Where I see things going is super tight integration.

You get a phone and it works great for its size. It does your voice and data calling and provides wifi. From there, your communicator badge, tablet, eyeglasses, watch, etc., all talk wifi to the phone.

Why do you need wifi/internet/calling ability on your phone and tablet?

Once you get this level of integration, then health monitors and even devices that monitor what you eat are trivial.

Agreed, as long as it just works. There's little things like Nike+ and Pebble which are mostly there, but don't integrate at the system level perfectly. Only Apple can let that happen.