Is Google's stock price nuts too? Their stock price is higher than Apple's. And Amazon's PE is over 300. I'd say Amazin is more nuts than Apple.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's Stock Price Breaks Through $700, Sets New All-Time Records for Price and Market Cap
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Is Google's stock price nuts too? Their stock price is higher than Apple's. And Amazon's PE is over 300. I'd say Amazin is more nuts than Apple.
I would say Brk-A is a little nuts when it comes to stock prices.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=BRK-A&ql=1
Looks like both Apple and Google are above the $700 mark this morning:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=GOOG&reco=1
But who was saying this?
I keep seeing Apple fans regurgitating these kind of comments after the iphone 5 launch, but the sad thing is no one was really saying the iphone 5 was going to be a failure or apple was doomed etc. They (and I) where criticising for its lack of innovation and questioning how much longer the iphone will remain so dominant, no one other than fools or trolls thought the iphone 5 would be a commercial failure.
I don't blame you. Especially if you have a "4" or earlier.
Me, I have a 4S, and am glad of it. Apple's M.O. has been, since the 3G, to update the phone's outside first and then for the next iteration, keep the same look and focus on the internals. Since I have the 4S, I have the fastest and best version of the "4" series. I don't want the iPhone 5. I'm looking forward to my upgrade next year with the iPhone 5S so that I have the best version of the "5" series. I'm thinking long-term. These are going to make excellent iPods.
No, but both my father and I had a time machine set for 2002. Believe me, that was enough. ;-) He's retiring this year, after not knowing for years if he could really afford to do it. It's largely due to Apple stock.
google market cap = 233 billion
amazon = 117 billion
apple over 650 billion
nope nothing nuts about google or amazon
This is the new party line I keep hearing from historically Anti-Apple friends of mine. At one point in the distant past it used to be "Who buys their stuff, it is an expensive crap". Over the years the "who buys their stuff" is not a winning argument, they now switch to "they do not innovate any more", as if Apple innovated every six months in the past decade. ( No, they innovated three times: iPod, iPhone, iPad )
These are all ever-weakening carards that anti-apple folks bring to a debate. I have a few criteria before I even decide to engage in a debate
1. Do you unconditionally agree that Apple revolutionized the smart phone?
2. Do you unconditionally agree that Apple revolutionized the tablet market?
3. Do you unconditionally agree that Apple created the modern tablet category all by themselves?
If they agree to all these three unconditionally, then I at least have a partial ear for them. Most anti-apple people will have a problem answering YES to those three questions. If they do not answer yes, walk away from the debate, it is not worth your time. Try these three questions or variations thereof on some of your anti-apple friends when you get a chance. It is a lot of fun.
A really high number for the stock price doesn't really mean anything.
Think of stock as cutting a company into many small pieces, each piece a certain size.
If the company is worth $1,000,000 and is cut into a thousand pieces, the stock price will be $1,000.
If you cut it into ten thousand pieces, the stock price will be around $100.
Just because the stock price itself is a large number means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of how well the company is doing. Most companies split their stock when the price starts getting too large, to keep the price reasonable; Apple simply hasn't done this, probably due to the psychological factor of "high stock price == we're doing WELL!" BRK.A is a rather extreme example of this.
Think of stock as cutting a company into many small pieces, each piece a certain size.
If the company is worth $1,000,000 and is cut into a thousand pieces, the stock price will be $1,000.
If you cut it into ten thousand pieces, the stock price will be around $100.
Just because the stock price itself is a large number means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of how well the company is doing. Most companies split their stock when the price starts getting too large, to keep the price reasonable; Apple simply hasn't done this, probably due to the psychological factor of "high stock price == we're doing WELL!" BRK.A is a rather extreme example of this.
People don't typically realize how truly HUGE a trillion is. A trillion Dollars is approximately :
1 Million dollars every second, 24 hours a day, for a Year.
$50 Million every 31 minutes 24 hours a day, for a Year.
$100 Million every 1 hour and 2 minutes for a Year.
$1 Billion dollars every 10 hours and 20 minutes for a Year
But that's exactly the problem. The stock won't be "more affordable" if it is split, and the split won't have any impact on the growth of the share price. Two shares at $350 after a split is exactly the same investment as one share at $700 now. It is almost exactly like making change from a twenty.
As for what the shares will do in the future, that's anybody's guess. But splitting the shares won't make any difference, that's for sure.
----------
Only for people who don't understand the first thing about equity investing. And those people should stay as far away from the stock markets as possible. They are far better off buying an index fund or ETF.
Same here. Invested in 2003 and bought 1000 shares AAPL, against the advice of the banker, at $13 a share. Shortly after, they split, I now have 2000. My Investement of $13000, coming from my grand mother that passed away, even paid me a few thousend dividend last month.
I'm going to decide after 10 years, very soon, what to do. I'm 61, a nice age to retire.......
Or consider this - the ENTIRE Global economy is said to have about $70 Trillion in GDP......
Or for another comparison, the US is currently spending $1.2 TRILLION per year in deficit spending....meaning our government spends 2 AAPLs each year that they don't actually have....
LoL... Palm. Wow I totally forgot about them. More like write it down in my day planner.
^This. Apple trades at about 16x earnings. It's actually getting to a reasonable value after having been undervalued for much of the past 3 years. Amazon is still trading on hopes of future earnings growth. Jeff Bezos is still pushing out Kindles at break-even, and even services aren't generating significant profits (big revenue yes, but big profits not so much).
Galaxy SIII isthinner1mm thicker (8.6mm versus 7.6mm) with an equal battery life but a bigger battery because it hogs power, LTE implemented with two power-hungry chips instead of one, more RAM because the inefficient software needs it and 50% faster-clocked, power-hungry processor with slightly worse performance.
Fixed that for you.
The S3 and all those giant Android phones remind me of muscle cars. Big cars with a giant engine under the hood and a bigger gas tank because they burn through fuel like nobody's business. They ultimately achieve the power and they've got plenty of cup holders, but you end up with bad fuel efficiency and cruddy handling.
The iPhone reminds me of a Porsche with the fuel economy and price of a Honda. It has a consistent and beautiful design language, it has the most efficient and best-performing technology, it handles like a dream and gets great gas mileage. You pay a fraction more but you get something that not only holds its value but has the highest ratings on customer satisfaction for many years in a row.
Any idiot can make a bigger box for a smartphone and shove more stuff in there, just like any idiot can double the weight of a car by throwing in a bigger engine. The innovation comes when you find ways to make what does exist run better. Apple's A6 is running at 2/3 the clock rate of the processor in the GS3 and yet it is edging it in bench marks. That means more instructions per cycle and it means better use of power.
NFC is the biggest joke of a feature in any smartphone. It requires a giant antenna that gets wrapped around the battery in most phones, it exposes your phone to increased security vulnerability, it drains battery, all in the name of being able to use it a few times per year to make a mobile payment. When I can do away with carrying my wallet then NFC mobile payments will matter. If I have to carry my wallet anyway because most stores don't take NFC payments then why make sacrifices in my mobile phone to get that feature.
I want features that matter and I want the features that I have to work better. That is what Apple does and that is why 2M folks pre-ordered the iPhone 5 in the first 24 hours of availability. That is why 63% of Australians surveyed who own a Samsung smartphone said they are switching to the iPhone 5 and Samsung's own followers on Twitter and fans on Facebook are saying that they'd rather have an iPhone (read it for yourself)
I could see Apple doing this... when the plants are completely automated, at which point one or more robot factories could be located in each market nation/continent.
Nothing Apple-specific about this, I just think that before working conditions, pay, etc. in electronics manufacturing improve significantly, the issues will go away, with automation. As will the jobs.
Wooow as ive always said Apple will indeed rule the world.
Makes me proud just being a customer
----------
i havent invested
and i care
Why would you be proud being a customer? lol.
I have to admit, I haven't always thought it.. I only knew it would happen after Apple switched to intel (2006) and then introduced the iPhone.. something sorta clicked, and I was like oh, jesus. They're making a power-grab at... everything.
Personally I find it pretty scary.
Just curious, at what price was Apple stock previously when you made a statement like that previously? The reason I ask is because some people were stating that same thing when Apple stock hit $500/share.
Look at the P/E and that will tell you something about why Apple stock is still a good buy. Long term Apple stock is a good investment.
Last edited:
This would all be great except for one small detail in the article:
Apple is NOT the most valuable company in the world. It's on second place.
The worlds most valuable firm is Saudi Aramco, the national oil company of Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Aramco has proven reserves of 260 billion barrels of oil. That is a fifth of all the oil in the world. And lets not forget the 283 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves (the fourth largest in the world).
It employs 56,066 people and comes with its own fleet of supertankers and network of refineries.
The industry journal Petroleum Intelligence Weekly ranks energy firms by asset size, and places Saudi Aramco as the world #1, ahead of the National Iranian Oil Co at #2, and ExxonMobile at #3. The Russian behemoth Gazprom scrapes in at #10.
Valuing a firm like this isnt easy.
Looking at the oil market, BP, ranked #6 by PIW, is valued at £85bn at a p/e of 7.87. It has proven reserves of 17.75 billion barrels of oil.
Applying the same metrics to Saudi Aramco gives a value of $1.245 trillion for Saudi Aramco, or almost double the value of Apple.
Apple is NOT the most valuable company in the world. It's on second place.
The worlds most valuable firm is Saudi Aramco, the national oil company of Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Aramco has proven reserves of 260 billion barrels of oil. That is a fifth of all the oil in the world. And lets not forget the 283 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves (the fourth largest in the world).
It employs 56,066 people and comes with its own fleet of supertankers and network of refineries.
The industry journal Petroleum Intelligence Weekly ranks energy firms by asset size, and places Saudi Aramco as the world #1, ahead of the National Iranian Oil Co at #2, and ExxonMobile at #3. The Russian behemoth Gazprom scrapes in at #10.
Valuing a firm like this isnt easy.
Looking at the oil market, BP, ranked #6 by PIW, is valued at £85bn at a p/e of 7.87. It has proven reserves of 17.75 billion barrels of oil.
Applying the same metrics to Saudi Aramco gives a value of $1.245 trillion for Saudi Aramco, or almost double the value of Apple.
As Apple today. Wait until the stock hits 4didgits.
Since when is Saudi Aramco a public company and where are they trading?
Using market cap to value a company is arbitrary, but at least more exact than your method, which is something like book value. Public companies calculate and publish this number, which is the theoretical total value of the company's assets. It is a kind of fiction, since it makes huge assumptions about the value of real estate and other assets that stockholders might be entitled to share if the company is liquidated. But typically if a company is liquidated, it is through bankruptcy, and in bankruptcy the shareholders are usually wiped out.
FWIW, the current book value for AAPL is $119.00/share, which incidentally is less than the amount of cash on the books, per share!