AAPL Stock Recoups Losses Incurred After Tim Cook Slashed Apple's Revenue Guidance

[KPandian1]

He likely bought more.

AAPL has easily outperformed the market since Cook took over even with the recent slide, so not sure what you're upset about.

Unless it is a hyperbole, the 1000% is a mockable statement. I think Green Mountain went up by more than 1000% early on - missed that boat.

AAPL has done great in the market - my purchases are at $10 in 2002, and ~$95 two years ago.

Are you factoring "Splits" in there? I am no math wiz, and I CERTAINLY suck at math (and, apparently, the calendar, too!); but I was just thinking of how much the value of, say, 10 shares of AAPL would be worth in 1997 vs. now. Obviously, that isn't the 6 years I quoted... Sorry!

My 00's stock split 14:1 overall, and went by 7X at the latest split. The growth was $10-700.

Since the split it multiplied by ~3 at the max (70 -233). So, 70X3 ~ 210X from 2001!

Not thousands.

More profit in day-trading this stock - something I'm sure is in Buffett's zone.

 

[C DM]

Unless it is a hyperbole, the 1000% is a mockable statement. I think Green Mountain went up by more than 1000% early on - missed that boat.

AAPL has done great in the market - my purchases are at $10 in 2002, and ~$95 two years ago.



My 00's stock split 14:1 overall, and went by 7X at the latest split. The growth was $10-700.

Since the split it multiplied by ~3 at the max (70 -233). So, 70X3 ~ 210X from 2001!

Not thousands.

More profit in day-trading this stock - something I'm sure is in Buffett's zone.

If we were actually to go back to early 2000s (especially with 2002 that was brought up) it seems like the increase would be in thousands of percent: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/021316/if-you-had-purchased-100-apple-2002-aapl.asp

 

[0388631]

This is somehow a reflection of Apple doing well suddenly - or the realistic simple market fluctuation?

No-news news!

Market fluctuation. The actual loss incurred in the first week of January based on Cook's news is primarily the result of individuals making a mad dash. Most stock holders who aren't afraid will hold on because a drop like that isn't all too important. What would be concerning is when the figures do come out a few months later.

You can see the same thing happen when DJT makes a sweeping generalization about a traded company. Stock price goes down, then comes back within a few days to a few weeks. I would focus on Apple's official numbers. If the resulting outcome is even worse than what Cook and Co. believe it to be based on their initial report, it could be dire for the stock and of course the company's value.

As the saying goes, buy cheap and sell high. However, don't sell and buy on every small whim.

Generally Q1 or sometimes 1H of every new year is a terrible time for businesses that deliver tangible products because most people bought what they wanted during the holidays. SaaS and similar aren't affected as much because they go by monthly, bi-yearly or yearly billing. And are a fraction of the cost of a luxury tech product.

 

[ryanwarsaw]

No, he likely bought more when it was being thrown to the curb like trash. It's already up 10% from the low.

I guess we will never know. I still think Apple isn't going to simply skate through the next few quarters.

 

[citysnaps]

Too many people engage here rhetorically with a "show me the proof" or "citation please", etc., with no real contribution to the conversation!

The burden is on the person making the claim. If the person is making a truthful claim from published information it should be very easy.

 

[KPandian1]

"Debate" section at https://macrumors.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/201327723-MacRumors-Rules-for-Appropriate-Debate

I agree. This seems like a sarcastic hyperbole.

 

[Baymowe335]

I guess we will never know. I still think Apple isn't going to simply skate through the next few quarters.

The risk of owning Apple is less than it was 90 days ago. Stocks decreasing is a good thing for long term investors.

 

[ryanwarsaw]

The risk of owning Apple is less than it was 90 days ago. Stocks decreasing is a good thing for long term investors.

If you already own AAPL that is true. If you don't I would wait to enter.

 

[Baymowe335]

If you already own AAPL that is true. If you don't I would wait to enter.

You can’t time the market. Impossible. If you like AAPL, you buy on dips. This is a dip. It’s already 10% higher than it was 3 weeks ago.

 

[DotCom2]

I guess we will never know. I still think Apple isn't going to simply skate through the next few quarters.

Hopefully, many will be buying new phones in 2020 when 5G becomes readily available and IPhones have the support for it.

 

[ryanwarsaw]

You can’t time the market. Impossible. If you like AAPL, you buy on dips. This is a dip. It’s already 10% higher than it was 3 weeks ago.

Okay you told me it was a good idea to buy at $194 two months ago. Now I don't really blame you for buying but at some point you should stop doling out your advice. Apple could be $360 or $50 you always sing the same tune. Now is a time that is very critical for Apple and I don't think their services have moved quickly enough or that phone sales are going to be stellar in the next few quarters.

I was actually waiting for Apple to announce earnings based on some of what you said about all the people like Ming being wrong. As it turns out they were right and your predictions were way off. So excuse me if in the future I disregard most of what you say.

Again I didn't put too much into your advice but you got it way wrong.
[doublepost=1547860912][/doublepost]

Hopefully, many will be buying new phones in 2020 when 5G becomes readily available and IPhones have the support for it.

Yes I guess so because I don't see much of a move before then. It is going to take time to get the films onto a streaming platform.
[doublepost=1547861119][/doublepost]

You can’t time the market. Impossible. If you like AAPL, you buy on dips. This is a dip. It’s already 10% higher than it was 3 weeks ago.

The dip was below $150 AAPL is on a slight rebound at the moment. Simply because the over all market is up especially trade oriented stocks. There is no unique news or catalyst coming out of Apple. Apple is not leading the market up they are riding the coat tails.

Let's see what January 29 brings.

 

[NauticalDan]

The stock market went up nearly exactly the same amount over the same period of time.

 

[ryanwarsaw]

The stock market went up nearly exactly the same amount over the same period of time.

That could be but at a glance at my loss/gain for similar stocks I can say that Apple shed the most weight. A month or two ago Apple was mentioned as being interchangeable as the biggest company in the world. That is no longer the case.

 

[Baymowe335]

Okay you told me it was a good idea to buy at $194 two months ago. Now I don't really blame you for buying but at some point you should stop doling out your advice. Apple could be $360 or $50 you always sing the same tune. Now is a time that is very critical for Apple and I don't think their services have moved quickly enough or that phone sales are going to be stellar in the next few quarters.

I was actually waiting for Apple to announce earnings based on some of what you said about all the people like Ming being wrong. As it turns out they were right and your predictions were way off. So excuse me if in the future I disregard most of what you say.

Again I didn't put too much into your advice but you got it way wrong.
[doublepost=1547860912][/doublepost]

Yes I guess so because I don't see much of a move before then. It is going to take time to get the films onto a streaming platform.
[doublepost=1547861119][/doublepost]

The dip was below $150 AAPL is on a slight rebound at the moment. Simply because the over all market is up especially trade oriented stocks. There is no unique news or catalyst coming out of Apple. Apple is not leading the market up they are riding the coat tails.

Let's see what January 29 brings.

Why would you listen to me? Stocks go up and down. You own your account and it’s up to you to make buying and selling decisions. Unless you’ve sold, you haven’t lost anything on your buy at $194. If you liked it at $194, you should love it at $150. 5 years from now, you might agree $194 was a fantastic price, just as $90 was a few years ago.

My cost basis is much lower than the current price, but I have many shares higher than today’s price.

I don’t care so much about the stock price n the short term. I look at stocks like owning a business and the daily quote is only meaningful in my interest in adding to my stake in the business.

If you’re just looking at the price, you’re not think about stocks the right way and you will likely do poorly.

I do know Apple’s valuation in nothing but cheap down here and they print money. China had a hiccup, but it was 1 quarter of bad news. The business is strong. You decide for yourself, but I’d advise against getting so caught up on short term price moves. The market sometimes can stay irrational for years. 9X earnings for AAPL is irrational in my view.

 

[ipponrg]

Why would you listen to me? Stocks go up and down. You own your account and it’s up to you to make buying and selling decisions. Unless you’ve sold, you haven’t lost anything on your buy at $194. If you liked it at $194, you should love it at $150. 5 years from now, you might agree $194 was a fantastic price, just as $90 was a few years ago.

If you’re just looking at the price, you’re not think about stocks the right way and you will likely do poorly.

I disagree. Everyone should listen to you because you give fantastic financial advice. Buying in at $194 and seeing it drop to $150 is the clear sign of this for the long haul. After all, imagine it gets to $200 and selling each share for a $6 profit (3% gain with your money) over a span of 5 years.

That's definitely the epitome of courage.

That could be but at a glance at my loss/gain for similar stocks I can say that Apple shed the most weight. A month or two ago Apple was mentioned as being interchangeable as the biggest company in the world. That is no longer the case.

Apple has historically been one of the more volatile stocks. Buy low, sell high. Don't keep for long. It's a great stock to jump in and out of in regular cadences.

 

[jonblatho]

Are you factoring "Splits" in there?

Yes, the calculations accounted for the 7:1 split that occurred in 2013. If not, that percentage would have been very much negative.

 

[Baymowe335]

I disagree. Everyone should listen to you because you give fantastic financial advice. Buying in at $194 and seeing it drop to $150 is the clear sign of this for the long haul. After all, imagine it gets to $200 and selling each share for a $6 profit (3% gain with your money) over a span of 5 years.

That's definitely the epitome of courage.



Apple has historically been one of the more volatile stocks. Buy low, sell high. Don't keep for long. It's a great stock to jump in and out of in regular cadences.

Everyone is a genius after the stock has moved. Again, long term investors are just trying to get lower prices. It’s always buy and sell at your own risk.

I do know this. Stocks go up over time. Not all of them, but they do in general. Indisputable. If you’re worried about a 90 day timeframe or even a 3 year timeframe, you shouldn’t own stocks.

Your hypothetical scenario is totally meaningless. I would bet a lot of money (and I have) that Apple will be higher than $200 in 5 years. I might be wrong, but my money is on the long side.

Even if it doesn’t, my cost basis is far lower.

 

[I7guy]

Everyone is a genius after the stock has moved. Again, long term investors are just trying to get lower prices. It’s always buy and sell at your own risk.

I do know this. Stocks go up over time. Not all of them, but they do in general. Indisputable. If you’re worried about a 90 day timeframe or even a 3 year timeframe, you shouldn’t own stocks.

Your hypothetical scenario is totally meaningless. I would bet a lot of money (and I have) that Apple will be higher than $200 in 5 years. I might be wrong, but my money is on the long side.

Even if it doesn’t, my cost basis is far lower.

Totally agree. If one looks at the market since the crash in 1929 it’s indisputable; the market has gone up. Of course investing is such an individual “thing” one has to determine their risk vs reward. But I have to chuckle at some of the general sentiment... and that is it’s Cooks’ fault for the stock going down but market appreciation for the stock going up.

 

[Baymowe335]

Totally agree. If one looks at the market since the crash in 1929 it’s indisputable; the market has gone up. Of course investing is such an individual “thing” one has to determine their risk vs reward. But I have to chuckle at some of the general sentiment... and that is it’s Cooks’ fault for the stock going down but market appreciation for the stock going up.

So correct. People use the stock to fit their narrative and when it’s down, it’s hard to argue everything is great. But 35% lower because of a 7% revenue adjustment almost entirely in China and still record eps? LOL, thanks for the lower prices.

Earnings will ultimately drive stocks higher. Sometimes, it takes many years, but they will. And Apple has the earnings and the buyback to deliver EPS.

The same people always say “just wait” when the stock is up, permanently being negative until a market dip makes them right in the short term. When it moves back up, they will say “just wait” again.

Meanwhile, they miss all the profits over time because the next downturn in just around the corner.

I’ll leave you with perhaps the greatest investment quote of all time.

“Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections, or trying to anticipate corrections, than has been lost in corrections themselves.” – Peter Lynch

 

[KPandian1]

If we were actually to go back to early 2000s (especially with 2002 that was brought up) it seems like the increase would be in thousands of percent: www. investopedia. com/articles/markets/021316/if-you-had- purchased-1 00-apple- 2002- aapl. asp

I looked at my statement and verified the number of stocks. To keep it simple, each stock became 14 - full stop. So even at the peak value of the share is 14X233 = $3262. The purchase price for each stock was about $10 then, (maybe more) and the is 326 or less.

At today's $157 per diluted share price, the value is 14X157 = $2198, i.e., 219 times. Dividends not included.

I tried following the Investopedia math - can't understand their computation. That is the site I go to understand the investment jargon, they are a solid service; so even more confusing. Their example timeline is the same as mine.

So, no thousands multiplication.

If you or anyone can explain this to better comprehend the Investopedia because you worked their steps and understood it, please explain it to me.

Still this multiple is lovely.

Tried to time the market and sold some at $210 in August 2018; didn't get the peak. Hope to buy some now.

 

[Coconut Bean]

If Apple "Over hyped and under performed", then what is the rest of the stock market's excuse for the past few months?
[doublepost=1547842522][/doublepost]
And a slightly longer term view is that Apple stock has SPLIT something like EIGHT TIMES since its low of just over $12 in 1997(?).

So how's THAT for some "Perspective"?

See, e.g., Forrest Gump (the movie)...
[doublepost=1547842790][/doublepost]
Stock market prices are a prime example (no pun) of an under-damped closed-loop control system, with FAR too much "gain" in the Integrator.

Prices start to go up, so they go up faster.

Prices start to go down, so they go down faster.

Most of the time it is nothing more than sensless and often destructive financial navel-gazing by so-called "ANALysts" who have little to no actual in-depth knowledge of the factors involved, especially when it comes to "tech" stocks, like AAPL.

If financial markets were underdamped closed-loop control system then money could be made exploiting this feature. This is a generalization you can't make. No doubt that periodically this might be true, but we only know that in retrospective.

Regarding the analysts, you do have expectations or a consensus of them at least. If the expectations shift, all equal then the price according to their model should by definition go down. Same applies for the realization of expectations. I agree that the models analysts build and use with the assumptions will very often miss but when everyone is wearing gloves and scarves it's probably cold outside.

 

[Carnegie]

I looked at my statement and verified the number of stocks. To keep it simple, each stock became 14 - full stop. So even at the peak value of the share is 14X233 = $3262. The purchase price for each stock was about $10 then, (maybe more) and the is 326 or less.

At today's $157 per diluted share price, the value is 14X157 = $2198, i.e., 219 times. Dividends not included.

I tried following the Investopedia math - can't understand their computation. That is the site I go to understand the investment jargon, they are a solid service; so even more confusing. Their example timeline is the same as mine.

So, no thousands multiplication.

If you or anyone can explain this to better comprehend the Investopedia because you worked their steps and understood it, please explain it to me.

Still this multiple is lovely.

Tried to time the market and sold some at $210 in August 2018; didn't get the peak. Hope to buy some now.

Your calculation is right. But a thousand percent doesn't mean 1,000 times, it means 10 times.

If a stock is worth 11 times what it was at some earlier point, it is up by 10 times its earlier value or by 1,000 percent.

If its value is 219 times what it was, then it is up 21,800 percent. And it's now worth 21,900 percent of what it was.

 

[ibivibiv]

Ah...you mean disruptive technologies that Apple's competitors and other tech companies have come up with over the last 10 years, such as Samsung, Microsoft, Dell, HP, Asus, LG, Sony, Lenovo, Acer, Toshiba, etc.

They've come up with so much disruptive technology, similar to the iPod and iPhone, that it makes everyone's head spin.

It's easy, right? Maybe you could offer some suggestions of truly iPhone/iPod class disruptive technologies Apple might pursue. After all, all the above companies are kicking butt on that front, correct?

I would agree. Apple at one point offered a clear differentiation from its competitors. They had a clear advantage. As time has continued that has changed. At this point in a product lifecycle product quality, customer service, and price become the key differentiators as the product becomes a commodity. Clearly customer service has always been the hallmark of Apple. The question is, do you raise the price and attempt to make the products "fashion symbols" with the branding? Or do you lower the price to compete with the newcomers in the space that offer nearly equal products?

We can see what Tim is choosing at least for now. I'd say Wall Street disagrees with that decision.

 

[KPandian1]

I disagree. Everyone should listen to you because you give fantastic financial advice. Buying in at $194 and seeing it drop to $150 is the clear sign of this for the long haul. After all, imagine it gets to $200 and selling each share for a $6 profit (3% gain with your money) over a span of 5 years.

That's definitely the epitome of courage.



Apple has historically been one of the more volatile stocks. Buy low, sell high. Don't keep for long. It's a great stock to jump in and out of in regular cadences.

Ha, Ha! Nice.

 

[I7guy]

I would agree. Apple at one point offered a clear differentiation from its competitors. They had a clear advantage. As time has continued that has changed. At this point in a product lifecycle product quality, customer service, and price become the key differentiators as the product becomes a commodity. Clearly customer service has always been the hallmark of Apple. The question is, do you raise the price and attempt to make the products "fashion symbols" with the branding? Or do you lower the price to compete with the newcomers in the space that offer nearly equal products?

We can see what Tim is choosing at least for now. I'd say Wall Street disagrees with that decision.

I agree with the clear differentiation. That ceased to be the case though in 2009 with the release of the galaxy. But today, Apple does retains its top notch customer service moniker.

When apple was at $1T wa Wall Street agreeing with Cook and a few months later disagreeing?
[doublepost=1547908449][/doublepost]

I disagree. Everyone should listen to you because you give fantastic financial advice. Buying in at $194 and seeing it drop to $150 is the clear sign of this for the long haul. After all, imagine it gets to $200 and selling each share for a $6 profit (3% gain with your money) over a span of 5 years.

That's definitely the epitome of courage.



Apple has historically been one of the more volatile stocks. Buy low, sell high. Don't keep for long. It's a great stock to jump in and out of in regular cadences.

People who didn’t get out at about $208 are kicking themselves. And, IMO, that’s we’re some of the negativity comes from.