Why is Apple's ticker AAPL? [Archive]

DTphonehome

Dec 7, 2006, 09:55 AM

Anyone have any idea why "Apple Computer Corp" has the ticker AAPL? There's only one "A" in the name of the company! Wouldn't APPL be better (I know that it's taken)?

Sdashiki

Dec 7, 2006, 10:00 AM

Anyone have any idea why "Apple Computer Corp" has the ticker AAPL? There's only one "A" in the name of the company! Wouldn't APPL be better (I know that it's taken)?

didnt you answer your own question?

DTphonehome

Dec 7, 2006, 10:05 AM

didnt you answer your own question?

No...I think Apple has had APPL longer than the other company had APPL. I'm wondering if there's some historical reason that Apple goes by AAPL.

Chaszmyr

Dec 7, 2006, 10:14 AM

Steve Jobs made a typo when he sent a memo to the financial advisor.

Kidding, of course

balamw

Dec 7, 2006, 10:31 AM

Steve Jobs made a typo when he sent a memo to the financial advisor.

He stuttered a bit in his early years you know, but he's largely gotten over it. :p

B

IJ Reilly

Dec 7, 2006, 11:16 AM

If it helps any, all ticker symbols on the NASDAQ, the market where AAPL is listed and traded, are four letters in length. Ticker symbols on the NYSE are one, two, or three letters in length.

Chaszmyr

Dec 7, 2006, 11:21 AM

Maybe its like companies having names like AAA so they are first on the phone book. AAPL puts apple significantly closer to the top of the list than APPL would.

MacsRgr8

Dec 8, 2006, 03:43 PM

It's because it's Awsome ApPLe.

mcarnes

Dec 8, 2006, 03:57 PM

Steve Jobs made a typo when he sent a memo to the financial advisor.

The "A" key did stick a lot on that bugger.

http://ranger.befunk.com/pics/latest/Coast%20with%20Mom-Images/174.jpg

Squonk

Dec 8, 2006, 04:27 PM

Maybe its like companies having names like AAA so they are first on the phone book. AAPL puts apple significantly closer to the top of the list than APPL would.

I was thinking something along these lines as well. AAAA Bail Bonds :p

~Shard~

Dec 8, 2006, 04:36 PM

It just is. The company's name is "Apple Computer Inc." but their symbol is "AAPL". Just accept it. :cool:

obeygiant

Dec 16, 2006, 01:50 PM

btw is anyone buying apple stock right now? is it a good buy?

mkrishnan

Dec 16, 2006, 02:01 PM

I'm shocked that this thread has not generated a more elaborate conspiracy theory.

FWIW there is an APPL but it doesn't appear to be a very online company. Or at least I could not locate any news about what it is, what it does, or what its history is.

So why didn't Apple go for the NASDAQ symbol "JOBS"? :D

dejo

Dec 16, 2006, 02:04 PM

So why didn't Apple go for the NASDAQ symbol "JOBS"? :D
I would guess because back in 1980, when they did their IPO, Steve Jobs was not CEO.

mkrishnan

Dec 16, 2006, 02:08 PM

I would guess because back in 1980, when they did their IPO, Steve Jobs was not CEO.

A company this good should be expected to have prescience, man, prescience!!!! :eek: ;) :D

(it was just sarcasm anyway)

dane0

Dec 18, 2006, 02:43 PM

FYI APPL is some company named Appell Pete Corp. A search on the internet will bring up a few stock quotes, but nothing really interesting. Probably some shady form of company channeling money for laundering so the big man won't have to pay any taxes :rolleyes:

Unspeaked

Dec 18, 2006, 04:53 PM

Motley Fool has suggested several times in the past that Apple should change their ticker to "IPOD"

I sort of agree.

~Shard~

Dec 18, 2006, 08:03 PM

Motley Fool has suggested several times in the past that Apple should change their ticker to "IPOD"

I sort of agree.

I don't - Apple is much more than just the iPod. :cool:

rdowns

Dec 18, 2006, 08:08 PM

If they were to change their symbol- MACS would be my choice. Or maybe RDF.

Unspeaked

Dec 19, 2006, 10:55 AM

I don't - Apple is much more than just the iPod. :cool:

Not on Wall Street it ain't!

mkrishnan

Dec 19, 2006, 11:16 AM

Not on Wall Street it ain't!

Actually their notebook computers at least are quite profitable. And they have a much richer mix of product sales in computers than pretty much any other PC manufacturer (maybe tied with Sony, as Sony also doesn't really sell budget fare?). This isn't particularly true, even though the iPod garners a lot of attention.

IJ Reilly

Dec 19, 2006, 11:53 AM

Actually their notebook computers at least are quite profitable. And they have a much richer mix of product sales in computers than pretty much any other PC manufacturer (maybe tied with Sony, as Sony also doesn't really sell budget fare?). This isn't particularly true, even though the iPod garners a lot of attention.

I think it's sadly true that the markets still really don't understand anything Apple is doing beyond the iPod. Not so many years ago, AAPL was trading for way under book value -- at a price roughly equivalent to the value of their cash on hand, which valued everything else the company owned, and their business selling Macs, as absolutely worthless. As odd as this was, you'd still have had a hell of a time finding any broker who'd recommend buying even a single share. I don't think the situation has changed appreciably today.

~Shard~

Dec 19, 2006, 12:34 PM

Not on Wall Street it ain't!

Yeah, pretty sad isn't it... :rolleyes:

ftaok

Dec 19, 2006, 01:27 PM

Maybe its like companies having names like AAA so they are first on the phone book. AAPL puts apple significantly closer to the top of the list than APPL would.

At least according to a book that I read (Infinte Loop), the reason that Apple chose AAPL was to have it listed higher on the NASDAQ alphabetically. It was a Steve Jobs decision.

How much of it was true and how much is lore is debateable. Kinda like how when Woz was named employee #1, Jobs demanded to be employee #0.

ft

IJ Reilly

Dec 19, 2006, 02:13 PM

At least according to a book that I read (Infinte Loop), the reason that Apple chose AAPL was to have it listed higher on the NASDAQ alphabetically. It was a Steve Jobs decision.

How much of it was true and how much is lore is debateable. Kinda like how when Woz was named employee #1, Jobs demanded to be employee #0.

ft

This story doesn't sound very plausible, if only because stock tables are not sorted by ticker symbols but by the company's name. As was pointed out, APPL was already taken. This didn't leave many options, except perhaps APLE. Not sure if that one isn't also already in use.

Unspeaked

Dec 19, 2006, 03:35 PM

I think it's sadly true that the markets still really don't understand anything Apple is doing beyond the iPod... ...I don't think the situation has changed appreciably today.

Yes, take a look at any business magazine or financial site mentioning Apple, and it's always iPod related.

At best, they might mention the "halo-effect" or some rumored new gadget like the iPhone, but it's always half-hearted mentions.

Apple could announce next quarter that their computer hardware sales quadrupled while their iPod sales fell 10% and the stock would plummet.

Hopefully, Apple can outgrow this by contuninung to post solid numbers, but it's going to take a long time for them to get out of the iPods long shadow in the business world.

ftaok

Dec 20, 2006, 06:53 AM

This story doesn't sound very plausible, if only because stock tables are not sorted by ticker symbols but by the company's name. As was pointed out, APPL was already taken. This didn't leave many options, except perhaps APLE. Not sure if that one isn't also already in use.

It depends on what stock table that you're looking at. I know the ones found in USA Today are sorted by Company Name, but the ones that used to show up in the Philly Inquirer (at least back in the 80's) didn't list the company name and just had tickers. In that case, AAPL would be listed ahead of APLE or APPL.

But then again, it could just be legend and not based entirely on facts.

ft

Unspeaked

Dec 20, 2006, 02:37 PM

IJ Reilly

Dec 20, 2006, 08:07 PM

Then there's the fact that where a company is listed on the exchange has zero impact on the stock itself.

I mean, this isn't the phone book where people will phone to exterminators in alphabetical order until they find a price they like... investment bankers don't just toss around millions of dollars because one tech company's ticker is higher than another's...

(At least, they shouldn't!)

Quite right. If Steve & Steve were so interested in alphabetical advantages, they'd have named the company Aardvark Computer. I think we should be so grateful that they weren't. I mean, who'd want to buy computers named for various types of ants?

leahtsang

Feb 19, 2010, 04:01 PM

I would say APPL was take so the next best choice would be AAPL as "An Apple" instead of APLE, APLL and APEE those are ugly names.

rdowns

Feb 19, 2010, 04:05 PM

I would say APPL was take so the next best choice would be AAPL as "An Apple" instead of APLE, APLL and APEE those are ugly names.

Thank you for your input. After 3 years, this thread now has closure. :rolleyes: