Apple Stock Smashes Previous All-Time High For Second Month Running

[lightmyway]

I love to see Apple doing well but in all honesty I do wish they weren't being rewarded for what has been a disappointing last couple of years, product wise.

As I sit here typing on my 12.9" iPad Pro with Smart Keyboard, wearing my Apple Watch, and listening to podcasts on my iPhone 7 with AirPods, I can't help but wonder if you just mean "I want a new Mac Pro." Big picture, Apple has been killing it with products over the past couple of years. And I expect they'll come out with great updates to Mac Pro and iMac this year.

 

[manu chao]

No, AAPL is still around $7 from its record market cap. That's assuming 5,246,540,000 shares outstanding, which was the number last reported by Apple (for January 20th). The number of shares may have come done a bit since then, but that would be the number that most would use until we get another one.

While market cap is a nice and simple measure, market cap minus net cash holdings would be the more interesting figure. If Apple were to reduce its (net) cash holding by $50 billion, you'd expect market cap to go down by $50 billion all else equal.

 

[dannys1]

You are sarcastic now but there will be hell to pay if Tim doesn't deliver the goods this year -- that is what this run up is based on. I say this both as an Apple fan and shareholder. I hope Tim isn't bluffing this time.

To be honest i'd be selling Apple shares now, I don't see how they can continue to rise and I expect a global crash shortly.

Plus we know really exactly whats going to come out this year. iPad's in the next 4-8 weeks, one with reduced bezels. iMacs with USB-C and a slightly faster Intel processor. Refreshed MacBook, refreshed MacBook Pros in November, the iPhone 8 in September and most probably the Apple Watch 3.

I would LOVE an update to the Mac mini personally, i'm here, waiting to buy it to run as a new server and i'd like to see a Mac Pro update for others - but I don't expect to see either.

 

[5105973]

It must of been the sticker fight app.

Thanks for the morning chuckle.

 

[Cineplex]

Lesson here: Not every "core product" needs to be breathlessly treated like a newborn baby, R&D can be done by people who aren't white, changing design that has no serious problems for the sake of catering to fickle people shouldn't be a priority, and transgender people can also be mentioned because a company of Apple's scale can actually do more than one thing at a time. As for the stock market, if you don't like it, don't buy the stock, and as for Apple, if you can't handle outsourcing, their leaders' decisions, their design tastes, or transgender people, BUY SOMETHING ELSE and take your misery there.

Oh please. Because everyone in America is white. Keep shamelessly defending Apple...I'm sure they appreciate it. Maybe Tim will send you a cake.

 

[pbasmadj]

Was it a must to say smashes?

Also, certainly not representative of their current products, ecosystem, or the direction they seem to be going, at all.

 

[Cineplex]

Another way to look at it is this:
Launch Watch that dominates smartwatch industry and looks poised to dominate entire watch industry as functionality increases and it becomes more valuable to use wrist space for a small computer.

Launch AirPods and look poised to dominate wireless headphone space at point that entire headphone space looks like it will be moving wireless.

Continue to dominate smartphone space.

The watch market is easy to dominate at the moment. Give it a few years and Apple will loose all that market share just like the iPhone. AirPods are never going to dominate...they are cheap headphones with a battery. Only the Apple elitists are interested in them. The rest of us buy higher quality brands than Beats with an Apple logo.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Smashes? Really?

Exactly. More like tiptoed or flirted.

 

[Carnegie]

Your sarcasm needs to be balanced with some FACTS. AAPL is up 40% over the past 5 years / the Dow is up 61% over the same period. Under Cook's "leadership" AAPL has not even beaten the Dow average. The market has little confidence in Cook.

AAPL is up 68% over the last 5 years while the DJIA is up 58% in that time.

Now, you can always cherry pick dates from the past to use as starting bases to make particular stocks' performances over time look better or worse. You can, e.g., look for points in time when a given stock reached a local peak or a local bottom. For instance, if you pick September 19th, 2012 you can say that AAPL is only up 40% since then while the DJIA is up 65%. You could also, if you wanted to, pick a different date in that general time frame which would make AAPL's performace look better in general and look better as compared to the DJIA's. But, if you pick 5 years to get a general sense of the comparison (rather than some odder time frame in order, perhaps, to make the comparison look as you would like it to), then the numbers are as I indicated - AAPL is up more on a percentage basis than the DJIA is.

More to your point regarding how AAPL has performed under Mr. Cook's leadership... Since August 23rd, 2011, the day before Mr. Cook was announced as Apple's new CEO, AAPL is up 163% while the DJIA is up 87%.

 

[IJ Reilly]

While market cap is a nice and simple measure, market cap minus net cash holdings would be the more interesting figure. If Apple were to reduce its (net) cash holding by $50 billion, you'd expect market cap to go down by $50 billion all else equal.

No, you would not expect that. Cash on the books is meaningless to investors because investors have no access to it whatsoever unless the company uses it to pay dividends, or indirectly, if they use it to buy back shares.

 

[dmylrea]

This. All the crap he's received and look where they are. That'll shut them up.

Right. Manipulate the company so shareholders profit, but loyal customers who just want something other than a same ol' iPhone or a watch or a band get nothing. Look where they are!

 

[travelsheep]

The rumors of a thinner iPhone with less Bezels really pushed those stocks up ! The sky is the limit

 

[IJ Reilly]

Some projections put Apple's stock price on a continual upward trend over 'iPhone 8' optimism, with several financial analysts raising their price targets for Apple's stock to between $150 and $185, according to research notes obtained by MacRumors.

The analyst consensus one year price target, obtained by me by looking at Yahoo Finance, is $143.

 

[Carnegie]

While market cap is a nice and simple measure, market cap minus net cash holdings would be the more interesting figure. If Apple were to reduce its (net) cash holding by $50 billion, you'd expect market cap to go down by $50 billion all else equal.

There's some correlation, but you wouldn't expect a dollar for dollar change (in the market cap). It depends, e.g., on how the market had been effectively valuing those cash holdings and how those cash holdings were used (e.g., was capital returned to shareholders and if so how so, or was it used for an acquisition?).


EDIT: I forgot to add...

The comparison of market cap minus net cash holdings between now and when Apple was at its market cap peak would be fairly close to the comparison of market cap between now and then. I could check the numbers to see just how close, but Apple's net cash today (or as of its last reporting) is in the ballpark of what it was then (i.e. in early 2015).

 

[citysnaps]

Your sarcasm needs to be balanced with some FACTS. AAPL is up 40% over the past 5 years / the Dow is up 61% over the same period. Under Cook's "leadership" AAPL has not even beaten the Dow average. The market has little confidence in Cook.

FACTS? Really.

Tim Cook officially became CEO at Apple in August 2011. Apple stock was around $53 per share at that time. At today's price and under Cook's leadership (no quotes necessary) the stock has climbed 164%. The Dow rose 80% in that same period.


"The market has little confidence in Cook."

Really...

 

[Chupa Chupa]

No it’s not. Don't be ridiculous.

Facts are stubborn things: http://csimarket.com/stocks/singleProfitabilityRatios.php?code=AAPL&itx

 

[IJ Reilly]

There's some correlation, but you wouldn't expect a dollar for dollar change (in the market cap). It depends, e.g., on how the market had been effectively valuing those cash holdings and how those cash holdings were used (e.g., was capital returned to shareholders and if so how so, or was it used for an acquisition?).


EDIT: I forgot to add...

The comparison of market cap minus net cash holdings between now and when Apple was at its market cap peak would be fairly close to the comparison of market cap between now and then. I could check the numbers to see just how close, but Apple's net cash today (or as of its last reporting) is in the ballpark of what it was then (i.e. in early 2015).

Every so often someone will offer a "net cash" analysis of stock prices, but it's usually for dramatic affect, not because it's a truly meaningful number for investors to weigh. It's little more than an envelope doodling exercise because investors are buying earnings and dividends, not cash on hand or any other asset value. You can find out quite painfully what part of a company's assets you as a stockholder own if the company goes into bankruptcy. The answer is zippo. Zilch. Nada. Holders of debt are far better off.

Now, assets may provide some basement support for a stock price, but only in the case of a troubled company that might be pursued for takeover, because the acquiring entity would get access to all of its assets if they succeed in taking it over. Basically we are talking breakup value. When I bought into AAPL in 1997 that was something to consider as your downside scenario. But if you're thinking that way as an AAPL investor today, you are treeing up the wrong bark.

 

[Glideslope]

Sack Tim, sack him now, it's tanking, ITS TANKING!!!

Could not agree more. This is all speculation.

 

[Rustus Maximus]

I love hearing the usual careless defense about how awesome Tim must be doing because of the stock and the sales of their toys.

Apple was also in a 'golden age' when Sculley was 'El Presidente'. Amazing sales and growth...all the while rotting from the inside out. But by all means, whistle happily whilst strolling past the tombstones.

 

[Glideslope]

To be honest i'd be selling Apple shares now, I don't see how they can continue to rise and I expect a global crash shortly.

Plus we know really exactly whats going to come out this year. iPad's in the next 4-8 weeks, one with reduced bezels. iMacs with USB-C and a slightly faster Intel processor. Refreshed MacBook, refreshed MacBook Pros in November, the iPhone 8 in September and most probably the Apple Watch 3.

I would LOVE an update to the Mac mini personally, i'm here, waiting to buy it to run as a new server and i'd like to see a Mac Pro update for others - but I don't expect to see either.

Global Collapse will most likely be late 2018 to 2019. Then a short period of mild unrest leading to Global Conflict. Have a decent reserve of Gold on hand.

 

[SeattleMoose]

No secret that AAPL has ALWAYS been undervalued!!!

I bought $10K worth of AAPL when the iPod was first unveiled.

At that time AAPL was $20 per share.

Since then (with several stock splits) that one move has allowed me to retire early.

Dumb luck..maybe. But in stocks you invest what YOU believe in. Not what other people tell you.

 

[H2SO4]

Facts are stubborn things: http://csimarket.com/stocks/singleProfitabilityRatios.php?code=AAPL&itx

I don;t really care what you link to, if you think that Apple pay really what they should you are living in cloud cuckoo land. If you think they don't do under the table deals, the WOW. Just WOW!

 

[Carnegie]

Every so often someone will offer a "net cash" analysis of stock prices, but it's usually for dramatic affect, not because it's a truly meaningful number for investors to weigh. It's little more than an envelope doodling exercise because investors are buying earnings and dividends, not cash on hand or any other asset value. You can find out quite painfully what part of a company's assets you as a stockholder own if the company goes into bankruptcy. The answer is zippo. Zilch. Nada. Holders of debt are far better off.

Now, assets may provide some basement support for a stock price, but only in the case of a troubled company that might be pursued for takeover, because the acquiring entity would get access to all of its assets if they succeed in taking it over. Basically we are talking breakup value. When I bought into AAPL in 1997 that was something to consider as your downside scenario. But if you're thinking that way as an AAPL investor today, you are treeing up the wrong bark.

I'm not a big fan of net cash valuations myself. They're typically done using a dollar for dollar valuation of the cash on a company's books and thus, without support for why that valuation is appropriate (i.e. why it's correct to think the market actually is valuing that cash that why), they don't necessarily reflect how the market is valuing the company's operations.

That said, for a multitude of reasons and depending of course on a given company's circumstances, the cash a company holds has some value. Among other things, it can represent potential to help a company's operations or to be returned to shareholders. Often it represents, at a minimum, a (typically comparably small) income stream. In Apple's case its net cash at a minimum represents (though I think the net cash it holds represents more potential) more than 2-1/2 billion dollars a year and more than 50 cents per share in pre-tax income. That's a fairly secure income stream being earned from fairly secure investments.

 

[marty11]

I own a few hundred shares, and still all I care about is Apple releasing a freaking iMac.

 

[firewood]

Lesson here: Abandon core product, outsource R&D, use same unoriginal designs year after year, and get involved in transgender bathrooms......stock goes up. Proof that the stock market is a flawed system.

Proof that profits (and thus what lots of customers are willing to pay for with their hard-earned cash) are unrelated to random pundit's beliefs in "core products" and "original designs".

The stock market doesn't adhere to the laws of gravity.

sure it does.

Over the very long term, the stock market may eventually adhere to gravity; but it can temporarily float and stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.