Apple Share Price Hits $600, Just One Month After Hitting $500

[Taz Mangus]

NOK is massively underpriced too at the moment.

But it will drop some more.

Yea, good luck with that. Might want to wait for it to become a penny stock which could be anyday now.

 

[poorracerkid]

I smell bubble.

 

[RonDMC]

You have no business giving financial advice or berating others for their opinions.

Agreed!

He is the last person I would take advice from, too busy stroking his ego!
The market will decide if Apple is under valued/over valued and anyone who claims to know exactly which way it will go is full of bs.

I know two things, 1. No other company has such a devoted fan base as Apple who will line up a week before a product launch. 2. China is still a huge untapped market and we will see good growth for at least the next couple of years and the smartphone/tablet market still has huge room for growth.

They are sitting on over 100 billion in cash and this is growing by a billion dollars per week. Even if there was no growth we are looking at 200 billion by 2014. Apple won't continue to grow at these rates forever but I think it is a very solid investment at least for the next couple of years.

 

[Avatar74]

6000 shares in 2000 at 18.75?

It was either 1999 or 2000... not entirely sure as I had a very long schedule D at the time, and I paid over $75,000 in capital gains taxes that year. Do you want a copy of my tax forms and my trade receipts? I actually do have them. I did $761,187.62 in trades that year.

 

[mccldwll]

1. 6000 around 2000-ish.
2. All of it.
3. All of it.



Not buying it Avatar. Not only do you not know enough about aapl to have owned it, but below is something you wrote in 2010 questioning aapl's value, at a time when you now claim to have owned it. [Further, suggesting you held a block of aapl worth over $2Mn, at the same time you're preaching all this other slow and steady investment diverification protection of principal advice is silly.] But you're right about one thing, "Nature abhors a moron."

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Lochias
My only point is that Apple's P/E is hardly surprising given its rate of earnings growth.
There's a fallacy embedded here in assuming that all speculators always operate rationally, or that all inputs into market price behave rationally... otherwise the statement "hardly surprising" is bunk.

Let's talk degrees of preposterousness for a moment... What would you define as a "surprising" PEG ratio (PEG not P/E) for Apple, and why? Indulge me and provide me with a method for analyzing P/E ratios independent of what other stocks are performing in the sector (as they may very well all be overvalued)... what are the quantitative error-checks against bias?

It's like Nostradamian predictions... I can predict that somewhere, some time, a purple flower will be seen by twins. As long as I'm vague enough about the time and place, my prediction is bound to come true. that's the problem with qualitative declarations in a quantitatively analytical environment.

So, your statement here is meaningless. Let me explain further...

I find, as a financial analyst, Apple's price fluctuation to be outrageous compared to its earnings growth. I can also tell you why... Imagine I offer to sell you $10,000 for $200,000. Would you take it? I don't think you would. That's the problem with valuation based on P/E multiples. It ignores the most fundamental, logical, airtight argument... that anyone who pays more than a dollar for a dollar is an idiot.

But Buffett has gone over this before... Some folks understand instantly the sense in paying 60 cents to get a dollar back, others never will... no matter how many times you explain it to them.

I know what your response is going to be... people are paying for a bet on future price. Well, then it's just gambling. Thats not investing. That's not finance. That's throwing darts blindfolded, hoping that you might hit a bullseye, rather than owning a piece of a company that's worth more than you paid for it. It isn't so much about hitting the bullseye every time as it is about knowing how to avoid potentially catastrophic investment decisions.

Quote:
Your straw-man question, "can you tell me why you would prefer to use the current market price as a predictor of value rather than the actual operating assets and cash generating ability of the business?" -- telling me what I supposedly believe and then ridiculing it -- is something else.

You have no idea how I invest, or what in.
I based my question off your original statement:

Quote:
Current P/E hardly reflects a price "heavily inflated by speculation," given the persistent numbers for expansion of nearly every product category. You can argue that Apple cannot maintain this rate of revenue and earnings growth, but analysts are surprised again and again on the upside. Unless you know something that most of us do not, Apple is significantly undervalued.
You stated that the Current P/E ratio doesn't reflect a price heavily inflated by speculation. Ok, then what does the P/E ratio indicate other than a price that is more than 20 times the value of earnings (and a little under ten times the value of working capital plus forward cash flows discounted to net present value)?

You stated Apple is significantly undervalued, and from your previous statement you're basing that claim entirely on P/E multiples... Hence my question.

Do you understand that when I say that the market price far exceeds intrinsic value, I've already factored in future earnings growth into my calculation of Apple's worth, on top of their working capital (net current assets)? So, then, where's the additional premium coming from? That's right... Apple's future cash flows and working capital are really worth about $35 a share given their current growth rate. Let's be generous and count total net assets less intangibles... even though that's a little misleading because only current assets dictate the revenue generating capacity. It doesn't matter how much property, plant and equipment they have... They could have gold toilets in their offices and it wouldn't make a lick of difference as to their earnings potential. But let's be generous and count it all.. it still comes to about $51-52 a share. That's not using a full-blown DCF model, which would only discount my estimated value of cash flows to a lower Net Present Value... making the per share intrinsic value (once again, book value PLUS future cash flows) even lower than $52 a share.

So tell me again, how are they undervalued at $250 a share?
__________________
"Nature abhors a moron." - H.L. Mencken
Last edited by Avatar74; May 28, 2010 at 04:42 PM."

 

[Avatar74]

1. 6000 around 2000-ish.
2. All of it.
3. All of it.



Not buying it Avatar. Not only do you not know enough about aapl to have owned it, but below is something you wrote in 2010 questioning aapl's value, at a time when you now claim to have owned it. [Further, suggesting you held a block of aapl worth over $2Mn, at the same time you're preaching all this other slow and steady investment diverification protection of principal advice is silly.] But you're right about one thing, "Nature abhors a moron."

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Lochias
My only point is that Apple's P/E is hardly surprising given its rate of earnings growth.
There's a fallacy embedded here in assuming that all speculators always operate rationally, or that all inputs into market price behave rationally... otherwise the statement "hardly surprising" is bunk.

Let's talk degrees of preposterousness for a moment... What would you define as a "surprising" PEG ratio (PEG not P/E) for Apple, and why? Indulge me and provide me with a method for analyzing P/E ratios independent of what other stocks are performing in the sector (as they may very well all be overvalued)... what are the quantitative error-checks against bias?

It's like Nostradamian predictions... I can predict that somewhere, some time, a purple flower will be seen by twins. As long as I'm vague enough about the time and place, my prediction is bound to come true. that's the problem with qualitative declarations in a quantitatively analytical environment.

So, your statement here is meaningless. Let me explain further...

I find, as a financial analyst, Apple's price fluctuation to be outrageous compared to its earnings growth. I can also tell you why... Imagine I offer to sell you $10,000 for $200,000. Would you take it? I don't think you would. That's the problem with valuation based on P/E multiples. It ignores the most fundamental, logical, airtight argument... that anyone who pays more than a dollar for a dollar is an idiot.

But Buffett has gone over this before... Some folks understand instantly the sense in paying 60 cents to get a dollar back, others never will... no matter how many times you explain it to them.

I know what your response is going to be... people are paying for a bet on future price. Well, then it's just gambling. Thats not investing. That's not finance. That's throwing darts blindfolded, hoping that you might hit a bullseye, rather than owning a piece of a company that's worth more than you paid for it. It isn't so much about hitting the bullseye every time as it is about knowing how to avoid potentially catastrophic investment decisions.

Quote:
Your straw-man question, "can you tell me why you would prefer to use the current market price as a predictor of value rather than the actual operating assets and cash generating ability of the business?" -- telling me what I supposedly believe and then ridiculing it -- is something else.

You have no idea how I invest, or what in.
I based my question off your original statement:

Quote:
Current P/E hardly reflects a price "heavily inflated by speculation," given the persistent numbers for expansion of nearly every product category. You can argue that Apple cannot maintain this rate of revenue and earnings growth, but analysts are surprised again and again on the upside. Unless you know something that most of us do not, Apple is significantly undervalued.
You stated that the Current P/E ratio doesn't reflect a price heavily inflated by speculation. Ok, then what does the P/E ratio indicate other than a price that is more than 20 times the value of earnings (and a little under ten times the value of working capital plus forward cash flows discounted to net present value)?

You stated Apple is significantly undervalued, and from your previous statement you're basing that claim entirely on P/E multiples... Hence my question.

Do you understand that when I say that the market price far exceeds intrinsic value, I've already factored in future earnings growth into my calculation of Apple's worth, on top of their working capital (net current assets)? So, then, where's the additional premium coming from? That's right... Apple's future cash flows and working capital are really worth about $35 a share given their current growth rate. Let's be generous and count total net assets less intangibles... even though that's a little misleading because only current assets dictate the revenue generating capacity. It doesn't matter how much property, plant and equipment they have... They could have gold toilets in their offices and it wouldn't make a lick of difference as to their earnings potential. But let's be generous and count it all.. it still comes to about $51-52 a share. That's not using a full-blown DCF model, which would only discount my estimated value of cash flows to a lower Net Present Value... making the per share intrinsic value (once again, book value PLUS future cash flows) even lower than $52 a share.

So tell me again, how are they undervalued at $250 a share?
__________________
"Nature abhors a moron." - H.L. Mencken
Last edited by Avatar74; May 28, 2010 at 04:42 PM."

Why do you think that my estimation in 2010 applies to their position in 1999? Have you not read a single word I've said? I have no idea why I have to keep repeating that value and price are both moving targets.... This is not complicated. I think you're not really paying attention to what I'm really saying....

There are times when it's been sensible to get on board and hold Apple. What I'm talking about TODAY is that TODAY initiating a new position in AAPL at $600 per share bears a significant amount of risk. If you think that risk is worth it for you, go ahead. No argument from me. But that just tells me you're either not willing or not able to find adequate returns elsewhere in the market. And that's sad, because it really doesn't take much work at all to find them. I don't want to sit around and wait for AAPL to be a bargain again. I'm more interested in finding securities that are bargain priced right now... Why wouldn't you do that? Forget all the other questions. Answer that last one. Why would you pass up all the other securities that CURRENTLY are bargains?

Do you prefer paying premiums rather than taking advantage of discounts? Money is money.

 

[xinu]

Yea, good luck with that. Might want to wait for it to become a penny stock which could be anyday now.

There is about 1.5 billion Nokia users in the world.
Apple is popular in United States the mother of all bubbles by Obama.
You dont even got the money to pay your own phones. I pay my bills and phones. We are Finns and we have a back bone here. It is called "sisu".

Apple is never going to get big market share in here. Never.

And never in Africa or India either. Why? they dont have money to pay 800 dollars for iPhone it is 6 months salary there. Try to get it into your head.

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000078802 "Nokia can triple"

AAPL will crash

 

[clibinarius]

Of course I know Mark. He lives here in Dallas. He started a business venture... that he sold for $5.9 billion. Do you see the distinction here?

You can be the sucker who buys an overpriced asset, or you can be the one that develops it from when it was underpriced and then sells it to any fool on the market willing to pay more than they should...

Do you know what Mark did after that? He quickly diversified his holdings. That's why he's STILL a billionaire.

Except he believed his asset was only worth about a hundred thousand, and Yahoo grossly overpaid for it, and is still paying him huge sums of money due to the deal, and THAT is why he's still a billionaire.

So yes. Luck. Sorry.

 

[xinu]

Dont you under estimate the power of Microsoft.

They want and they will dominate the enterprise business market now and in the future. It is Microsoft we are talking about here.

No firm in the world is buying iPads for their workers. They will buy Win8 tablets which run Microsoft Office products natively. And they integrate with Win8 server technology.. And Apple killes the Xserve line.. What a stupid thing to do. It is called giving up. They lost it.

And then there is IBM. Dont know how much they like Apple either.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=AAPL Going down
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=NOK Going up
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=MSFT+Basic+Tech.+Analysis&t=3m MS really going up

When CEO of big company makes decisions they will go MS+NOK with their Computers and Phones.
And the developing countries... They wont have money for Apple products. It is a fact.

And majority of worlds people are quite broke anyway, but they still need 3G and internet.

You think that in Africa or India people are going to accept Apples insane restrictions and pricing? lol

 

[mccldwll]

Avatar74--Unfortunately, I've waded through more than a single word and I simply don't believe your claims. You sound like a student, not an investor. You really don't know that much about aapl. In 2010 you "schooled" a poster in a similar "Graham, Buffet, etc." way about how aapl wasn't worth $250--at a time when you now claim to have owned it. That also would have been at a time when your portfolio would have been worth in excess of $15Mn, assuming you followed your own advice about spreading risk, and worth well in excess of $20Mn when you claimed you sold your aapl. Would also be worth well in excess of $25Mn now based on claimed alternative returns. Very nice of you to slum it here. Again, your words don't match your "claimed" deeds and investment advice. I know many people, very well, with aapl portfolios now in the $Mns and they don't waste their time as you have here. And, they never talk about how much they have or how much they made, or lecture non-investors. There's an appropriate Texas expression--"all hat and no cattle." Drop the avatar and get a life.

 

[xinu]

Avatar74--Unfortunately, I've waded through more than a single word and I simply don't believe your claims. You sound like a student, not an investor. You really don't know that much about aapl. In 2010 you "schooled" a poster in a similar "Graham, Buffet, etc." way about how aapl wasn't worth $250--at a time when you now claim to have owned it. That also would have been at a time when your portfolio would have been worth in excess of $15Mn, assuming you followed your own advice about spreading risk, and worth well in excess of $20Mn when you claimed you sold your aapl. Would also be worth well in excess of $25Mn now based on claimed alternative returns. Very nice of you to slum it here. Again, your words don't match your "claimed" deeds and investment advice. I know many people, very well, with aapl portfolios now in the $Mns and they don't waste their time as you have here. And, they never talk about how much they have or how much they made, or lecture non-investors. There's an appropriate Texas expression--"all hat and no cattle." Drop the avatar and get a life.

I may believe if he really shows his Tax receipts but we both know we will never see them. Because some people make up insane internet-personalities for them selves.

A millionaire in these crappy forums? I'll doubt that.

----------

It was either 1999 or 2000... not entirely sure as I had a very long schedule D at the time, and I paid over $75,000 in capital gains taxes that year. Do you want a copy of my tax forms and my trade receipts? I actually do have them. I did $761,187.62 in trades that year.

I did 7,899,388.76 EUR that year I lost the receipts though It was 1997 or 2001 cant remember those pennies anymore

 

[cadillac1234]

If Apple had no more growth, their stock would be undervalued. A normal PE in a non tech industry is around 20. For a tech stock, it runs closer to 30 (32 would not be out of the question). Apple has a P/E of only 16. If Apple growth stopped today, their valuation would be twice what their stock is selling for. Don't put all your money in Apple, or any stock, however, Apple is not overvalued.

I think everyone overlooks how powerful $100 billion in liquid assets is.

Demand will eventually taper off and most likely 30% margins will tighten but a $100 billion in cash will certainly see Apple through a couple of rainy days

 

[Taz Mangus]

There is about 1.5 billion Nokia users in the world.
Apple is popular in United States the mother of all bubbles by Obama.
You dont even got the money to pay your own phones. I pay my bills and phones. We are Finns and we have a back bone here. It is called "sisu".

Apple is never going to get big market share in here. Never.

And never in Africa or India either. Why? they dont have money to pay 800 dollars for iPhone it is 6 months salary there. Try to get it into your head.

Not sure how we got from the Apple stock price to who can and can't afford to buy a iPhone. Where was I taking about your ability to afford a Apple iPhone?

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000078802 "Nokia can triple"

I really hope it does tripple for you.

AAPL will crash

And then some people are predicting the end of the world would happen in 2012. I think I will stick with professionals that actually know something about stocks. But thanks for the insight none the less.

----------

No firm in the world is buying iPads for their workers.

Please do some research before you make silly claims like you do.

http://www.macnn.com/articles/12/01/17/ios.devices.employee.demand.seen.as.drivers/
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/sybase/does-ibm-have-the-largest-apple-deployment-in-the-world/2515
http://www.imore.com/2011/05/29/alaska-airlines-ipad-flight-manuals/

 

[twoodcc]

when all is said and done, i think apple will go down with the record. at least in my lifetime

 

[Jeffacme]

I purchased 6000 shares of AAPL at 18.75. I sold at 340. What'd I miss?

*shrug*

240 points!

BRKA has been treading water for the last two years while AAPL has given up a double and then some.

I am a Buffet fan and have owned Berkshire but just when I thought he was in his wheel house coming out of a recession he has faltered. So yes the whole Graham/Dodd "Security Analysis" methodology has dramatically underperformed in the recent past. The world has changed.

 

[Avatar74]

I may believe if he really shows his Tax receipts but we both know we will never see them. Because some people make up insane internet-personalities for them selves.

A millionaire in these crappy forums? I'll doubt that.

----------



I did 7,899,388.76 EUR that year I lost the receipts though It was 1997 or 2001 cant remember those pennies anymore

You know, one of my failings as a human being is that once in a while I still fall for the Argument From Authority Troll... it's a classic troll. And I hate myself for succumbing to it.

I know I'll never be as tactful as mccldwll's friends. That's just not in my nature. I'm kind of a jerk. I'm very disorganized because I live in my head. But I'm not a liar. I don't have the imagination to create elaborate fantasies as I've seen over the past two decades practically inhabiting the net. It's kind of funny because the first time I'd encountered that it was a bit of a shock. It hadn't occurred to me that there'd be any reason to be anybody but you. Pretending to be someone else takes a lot of work and a good memory, and I'm just not that guy.

Thing is... I consider myself fortunate for having learned some good lessons the hard way when I was very young. I changed my view on investing as a result of some serious exposure to risk, hence why mccl... whatever... is shaking his head. People expect a person to behave consistently this way or that, or else you're a flip-flopper. It's part of our culture. But chalk it up that I learned that what I was doing was very dangerous. Did it make me money? Yes. It made me a lot of money... it also lost me a lot of money, too. And it wiped out many, many people who have had to pick themselves up and start again.

I hear the exact same kind of self-assurance and self-deception in these forums about AAPL as I do about many companies that were giants for a time. But I've lived long enough to see Apple rise, fall, rise again... I'm not saying they're going to wind up 90 days from bankruptcy again. But there are factors affecting growth that will slow it down.

Believe my philosophy. Don't believe my philosophy... it's all the same. But I'm more interested in having the discussion around methods of business valuation rather than the old internet trope of having your credibility questioned as a means of digressing away from having to actually discuss the particulars of the argument and the mathematics/logic/art/science behind it.

But, there will always be some people who aren't up to that task. They can't be reasoned with, no matter what. There's another old saying (I live in Texas and I've never heard the one about the hat...), "Some people, they know. Others, you can't teach 'em." There's two types of people: Those who immediately get the point behind buying a dollar worth of assets for sixty cents, and those who never will.


----------

[/COLOR]

240 points!

BRKA has been treading water for the last two years while AAPL has given up a double and then some.

I am a Buffet fan and have owned Berkshire but just when I thought he was in his wheel house coming out of a recession he has faltered. So yes the whole Graham/Dodd "Security Analysis" methodology has dramatically underperformed in the recent past. The world has changed.

I think it's a mistake to evaluate a compounding principal strategy on the basis of a few recent years. Even in the past decade, Berkshire's managers have achieved results besting the S&P. Also, I'd hardly call it "treading water" to have grown their float by another $5 billion last year, and increase per share book value 13% in 2010, and 19.8% in 2009. Granted, they didn't beat the S&P in those years... but overall they've done fine.

However, they're also an example of my point about shrinking growth and the need for an elephant gun. As big as they are, it takes a lot more working capital than most enterprises have to move the needle the same distance as in prior years to avoid shrinkage of revenue growth. And other factors are negatively affecting the P/C business, including the rise in climate-related catastrophic claims. And even then, even if the industry were to get whacked with $250 billion in claims, it would wipe out plenty of P/C businesses, as Buffett notes in his 2011 letter, but Berkshire's reinsurance operations would still ink a small profit because they are conservatively diversified into other industries at pretty good discounts.

 

[poundsour]

I'll just leave them with this:

Damn, Avatar just sonned you guys.

 

[RalfTheDog]

I think it's a mistake to evaluate a compounding principal strategy on the basis of a few recent years. Even in the past decade, Berkshire's managers have achieved results besting the S&P. Also, I'd hardly call it "treading water" to have grown their float by another $5 billion last year, and increase per share book value 13% in 2010, and 19.8% in 2009.

If you don't best the S&P, you need to find a new line of work.

... A millionaire in these crappy forums? I'll doubt that.

Quite a few of us. Being a millionaire is not that big of a deal anymore. (It's called inflation.)

 

[mccldwll]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B176 Safari/7534.48.3)

Avatar didn't do squat other than show a bunch of day trading, demonstrate how disorganized, and demonstrate he didn't know his buy/sell prices or dates. Let's see him explain the splits, and show the sale of 6000 shares at $340--after he had posted much, much earlier that it wasn't worth $250. Lots of bullspit in Texas.

 

[Avatar74]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B176 Safari/7534.48.3)

Avatar didn't do squat other than show a bunch of day trading, demonstrate how disorganized, and demonstrate he didn't know his buy/sell prices or dates. Let's see him explain the splits, and show the sale of 6000 shares at $340--after he had posted much, much earlier that it wasn't worth $250. Lots of bullspit in Texas.

*sniff* I think I'll go cry now. I will never be good enough for mc- mcc-... that guy.

Yeah, I'm disorganized. Yeah I used to trade with very high frequency (never mind the volumes or dollar amounts. (Oh noes, I forgot which buy date I had among... a few hundred transactions...). What I did was very risky, and I had some very large wins, and some pretty scary losses, too. I'm not a speculator now. But thanks for trying to derail this entire thread with an Argument From Authority troll, rather than actually having any capacity to discuss the merits or disadvantages of intrinsic valuation on operating capital and cash flows.

But you're welcome to return to that angle of conversation any time you like. So far, the only really cogent response I got was from IJ Reilly, and we don't even agree. *shrug*

 

[TheBronx]

ITT: Two people arguing about something no one cares about.

 

[mccldwll]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B176 Safari/7534.48.3)

That page showed 7900 shares traded in 2000 @$28. If those were all buys, as claimed, and you held all until $340, as claimed, that would have been 15,800 after the 2005 split. Your sale at $340, as claimed, would have resulted in proceeds of well over $5,000,000, and significant taxes. It also would have suggested a portfolio well in excess of $30,000,000, since you posted about your conservative philosophy in 2010. I think you at least would have remembered that. Your story needs a LOT of work.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Oh, brother. Careful, you might hurt yourself when you fall off that high-horse.

I'm a plenty inexperienced investor and know it. That's how I know NOT to pull my money out of my 401K and plunk it down on Apple stock. Also, since this is not an investment forum I pretty sure most of the readers are not experienced investors. I'm not sure why you think I'm giving advice to experienced investors.

I'm just telling people: don't get too excited by this news and put a lot of money into Apple stock. When amateurs pick stocks on their own they loose more often than they win, especially when chasing headlines. Of course I don't know if Apple stock will be, e.g., above $800 or below $400 a year from now nor which is more likely. My point is that hardly anyone else on this forum does either.

If your deep experience has led you to a different conclusion then, please, enlighten us. Just try to bite off my main point rather than nibbling at my feet.

Oh brother yourself. I don't see how this is a response to anything I actually said.

Going back to what you said, and my response to it: You said that the current price of AAPL is a "speculative bubble," which is simply another way of saying that it is currently "overpriced." It is your claim of knowledge about true valuations that generated my response, which was that the markets set true value every second of every day, and nobody knows whether a stock is currently over or under-valued ahead of the fact, only after. I wasn't telling anyone to buy or sell AAPL. You'll never catch me doing that because I don't pretend to have any knowledge of future stock valuations.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Yes they had and now they dont... Tim Cook wont come up with such ideas that Steve did. Mumbling about post-pc era.. yeah right. Pro work with ARM cpu's iCloud not gonna happen.

But, then again perhaps Apple just leaves the Pro working for Windows-8 users in the future. That would eat Apple away like cancer.

Miracles always happen but to whom, we will see.

We shouldn't under estimate Microsoft either. They will pull it off eventually and keep their 80-90 % of PC's and probably will get some good peace of tablets too.

But if Nokia wont sell other OS's than Win8 that will be a big problem.

I think you miss the point. Apple had its savior in Steve Jobs. My question is, who will do for Nokia what Steve did for Apple? I hope you don't think it's Steve Ballmer. He has managed to keep Microsoft from running completely into a ditch, but only just.

 

[diamond3]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B176 Safari/7534.48.3)

Avatar didn't do squat other than show a bunch of day trading, demonstrate how disorganized, and demonstrate he didn't know his buy/sell prices or dates. Let's see him explain the splits, and show the sale of 6000 shares at $340--after he had posted much, much earlier that it wasn't worth $250. Lots of bullspit in Texas.

Seriously, this is becoming ridiculous. If you don't believe the man, so be it. First you claim he was a student most likely, now he shows you proof of purchase for the stock and now you want proof that he sold it? Give it up. He's done more than enough to try and demonstrate it. If you don't want to trust his opinion, then maybe you shouldn't. It's not as if every single word that comes out of his mouth (types) is false and terrible advise. He's not your financial advisor, so what are you so worried about? You are coming across as pathetic, desperately trying to prove he's wrong. I'm not saying he's right or wrong, I'm just saying it should be dropped.