Apple's Stock Reached New All-Time Highs This Week

[sjsharksfan12]

I remember a month ago I was starting to feel like Apple has been too stagnant since the stock split. It's gone on quite a run in the last few weeks. I'm thinking I won't be in any option position for earnings because I don't know how the stock is going to react after the earnings call. I've been surprised the last few calls.

 

[bushman4]

Apple has upside to go. New products as well as iPhone 13 will drive it higher

 

[MacBH928]

Last year it was $80, this year its $140. There is no way Apple created a trillion dollars in extra value over a year. Its the same company, if anything stocks should be lower because of the pandemic. I think the people jumping on the AAPL train is starting because "this stock doubles every year" and we will just see who is still sitting on the chairs after the music is stopped...

 

[One2Grift]

33 isn’t high for industry leading tech with massive services. High are AMZN, TSLA, NVDA, NFLX, CRM, etc.

I COMPLETELY agree. Imho Apple is an undervalued stock/devalued PE for multiple reasons:
-gross profit A- performer & net profit grower A+ performer almost always.
-brand name and quality recognition A+
-Customer satisfaction and retention numbers A
-share buyback has been staggeringly A+
-the most unique product on the planet: single company engineered personal electronics and services ecosystem (Apple has no true peers on this item) A+
-Services sector growth A+
-Wearables sector growth A (bigger than Mac or iPad revenue sectors)
-Mac sector just brought under single company designCPU/SOC B+
-Flagship device, IPhone, alone generates more revenue than all of Microsoft or Google. It has its sales graph bumps but is considered’ease of use’ and quality excellence. And it’s a ubiquitous consumer item that is at the heart of that ecosystem A

Except for a few missteps, Apple hits their intentions as good as it comes.

But my belief they are undervalued and 5$ will get me a Starbucks mocha latte. If the Wall Street institutions don’t believe it then it isn’t to be.

But check the historical numbers, 33 PE is getting close to lofty for Apple (I see Microsoft at 38 with its cloud growth potential yet still think Apple should be 40 for rev streams and eco). Imho it won’t sustain 36 through Sept. But you heard it here first 😀, I’m saying earnings over perform at 1.19 per share. That’ll change the PE calculation quite a bit. Today’s 33 will immediately become about 29.5. Add a similar q4 over perform will drop today’s 33 to about 27.25.

5.50 EPS
35 PE
=
192 Stock price (At least for a few weeks until In Sept. until my suspicion of the headwinds start, due to YoY comps being so high to beat, and the stock falls back to the high 160s)

 

[graafisk]

Feeling almost as good about my $3.23 cost basis as the IRS also eventually will.

Understand how the US tax code deals with capital gains: https://www.investopedia.com/articl...gterm-vs-shortterm-capital-gain-tax-rates.asp

Essentially, just hold your investment for at least 1 year, and any capital gains upon selling (keep the gain under your yearly maximum) are taxed at 0%. 😀

Stocks are a long-term investment; people who sell and buy frequently as a stock price fluxuates up and down are just paying Uncle Sam a huge portion of the little bit they earn and making their tax return ridiculously complicated. The sell/buy scheme works though if you can limit to selling high once every 13 months then buy again when the stock is lower than your selling price... wait 12+ months, repeat.

You've clearly held your investment more than a year, so you should be good to go! Sell off a few shares whenever you need some cash to enjoy life, let the remaining continue to grow... that's my method. 😇

 

[aneftp]

Apple and other big tech stocks like Microsoft and Amazon are long term “safe” bets. There are a lot of what “ifs” taking short term profits over buy and hold. Depending on people ages I purchased Apple when it was $90 back in 2009/2010. Can’t remember exact dates. Sold it for 10% profit in a month. That was idiotic looking back. Same with me holding on to 500 shares of apple around 2011-2012. Selling some on the way up 10-20 shares at a time to take profit. Had I held on to those original 500 shares. I would have had 14000 shares (7:1 split and than the 4:1 split last year). I didn’t even need to money. I thought it was time to take profit. I still own 3000 shares Apple. But as I grow older. I buy and hold these big companies. I purchased some more apple at $121 and $130 the past 6 weeks. My advice is buy stocks in companies you use every day. Most of us use Apple Microsoft Facebook Amazon Google. They are here to stay. For a long time.

 

[incoherent_1]

I’m sure there are small things here or there that aren’t perfect or the way he would’ve done them, but I really wish Steve could know how insanely successful his creation from a garage has become. Now the most highly valued company on earth and many experts still saying it’s undervalued. Truly an amazing achievement.

 

[Yokon54]

Last year it was $80, this year its $140. There is no way Apple created a trillion dollars in extra value over a year. Its the same company, if anything stocks should be lower because of the pandemic. I think the people jumping on the AAPL train is starting because "this stock doubles every year" and we will just see who is still sitting on the chairs after the music is stopped...

Your analysis is completely wrong.

1) A stock’s value has nothing to do with a previous price to which you’ve anchored your mind.

2) The pandemic objectively made AAPL stronger and improved their earnings.

3) The market is simply telling you $80 was too cheap for AAPL.

4) “The music stopping” is a tired argument with no basis in reality. Anyone waiting for that has lost money, as they all have over the last 140 years as stocks have continued to roar higher. The bulls always win.

5) AAPL is not an expensive stock for the earnings and growth it has produced.

 

[citysnaps]

Last year it was $80, this year its $140. There is no way Apple created a trillion dollars in extra value over a year. Its the same company, if anything stocks should be lower because of the pandemic. I think the people jumping on the AAPL train is starting because "this stock doubles every year" and we will just see who is still sitting on the chairs after the music is stopped...

Since this time last year Apple has successfully released three M1-based computers with superior performance per dissipated watt, at a lower cost, with more to come later this year. No doubt Apple's M-based cpu roadmap will further put Intel's to shame going forward.

That by itself demonstrates Apple's future is no longer beholden and shackled to Intel and its lethargic barely incremental CPU roadmap and long delays. To me, other tech enthusiasts, and industry pundits, that's huge and worthy of Apple's extra value right there.

 

[TallManNY]

Yes Warren Buffett believes in the revenue-profit moat.
But the monopoly comment is another's interpretation. it is not Buffett's words and as you can see from his holdings, he doesn't even own what is closest to a monopoly (Google's search business is the closest thing to a monopoly I know of short of state run firms in other countries).


Buffet on the"moat"

“The most important thing [is] trying to find a business with a wide and long-lasting moat around it … protecting a terrific economic castle with an honest lord in charge of the castle…”
“long-lasting” — durable for many years."

On Apple (and his general philosophy):

"…people have this incredible stickiness of — with the product. I mean, if they bring in an iPhone, they buy a new iPhone. I mean, they’re … it just has that quality. It gets built into their lives. Now, that doesn’t mean something can’t come along that will disrupt it. But the continuity of the product is huge, and the degree to which their lives center around it is huge. And it’s a pretty nice franchise to have with a consumer product.”

He doesn't mention monopoly, his holdings aren't a monopoly (his biggest holding Apple is certainly not a monopoly), he relies on brand power, "stickiness" of the product(will it be ubiquitous in people's lives), excellent management. Again that is not a monopolistic view, that's finding the right management players who command a market through better pricing or a product that has staying power in people's lives. But it is something he will drop in a second if a disrupter of a product comes along (Blackberry --> Apple comes along with the iPhone).
Buffett's biggest equity holding, Apple, is because of the very reasons stated. with Monopoly not being one.

That is kind of my point. He doesn't mention monopoly. He uses this great term "economic moat". But think about it for a second. What he means by a moat is a business that won't face much competition. When a business doesn't face much competition, then it can extract larger profits (either by raising prices or lowering service/quality; and often by doing a combination of both). The pain of larger prices or worse products falls on the consumer. The bigger the economic moat, the closer to a monopoly. Monopolies are considered bad because of the pain felt by consumers. Which is why consumers have through the power of their governments put in place anti-trust laws. But basically those laws have been poorly enforced for decades now. If there are two or three businesses in a space, the US government basically shrugs and says that is fine. It doesn't take a written agreement (which would be illegal) for three "competitors" to coordinate to not undercut each other's profit too much.

The whole excellent management thing is only kind of important. And there are Buffet quotes to exactly that effect.

Special Investigation: The Dirty Secret Behind Warren Buffett’s Billions

America’s favorite investor loves monopoly, not free markets.

www.thenation.com

During that May 26, 2010, meeting, Buffett deflected responsibility for Moody’s actions. “I knew nothing about the management of Moody’s,” he told the federal investigators, explaining candidly why he owned so much stock: Moody’s faced practically no market competition.

“The single most important decision in evaluating a business is pricing power,” Buffett said. “If you’ve got the power to raise prices without losing business to a competitor, you’ve got a very good business.” The “big three” rating agencies—Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s, and Fitch—controlled 95 percent of the rating-agency market, an insurmountable advantage over would-be competitors. “If you’ve got a good enough business, if you have a monopoly newspaper or if you have a network television station,” Buffett concluded, “your idiot nephew could run it.”

It has been a very successful investment strategy, but it isn't good for society for major businesses to face limited competition.

 

[Pootie Tang]

AAPL has underperformed for the last 10 years through groupthink management. We need new leadership to take this company forward as right now I don't think it's maximizing shareholder value. I want Cook to resign.

Tim Cook just got a 28% pay raise. I don't think he's going anywhere until he choses to retire.
Apple CEO Tim Cook Gets Pay Raise

A spike in Apple’s profits helped boost Cook’s compensation plan by nearly 30%.​

Apple CEO Tim Cook Gets Pay Raise

Apple CEO Tim Cook received a higher compensation package in 2020 compared to the previous year as global work-from-home policies due to the coronavirus pandemic helped boost Apple’s profits for the year.

www.investopedia.com

 

[iF34R]

I have about 35 shares, I see the difference in my Robinhood account. Hoping to see it go even higher.

Same. 34.75 shares at $125 average.

 

[ConfusedChris]

You guys are doing really well but:
I actually met Steve in his garage and bought half his company for a punnet of strawberries.

Seriously though, well done.

 

[iF34R]

I wish I had seen it when it was lower.

 

[One2Grift]

That is kind of my point. He doesn't mention monopoly. He uses this great term "economic moat". But think about it for a second. What he means by a moat is a business that won't face much competition. When a business doesn't face much competition, then it can extract larger profits (either by raising prices or lowering service/quality; and often by doing a combination of both). The pain of larger prices or worse products falls on the consumer. The bigger the economic moat, the closer to a monopoly. Monopolies are considered bad because of the pain felt by consumers. Which is why consumers have through the power of their governments put in place anti-trust laws. But basically those laws have been poorly enforced for decades now. If there are two or three businesses in a space, the US government basically shrugs and says that is fine. It doesn't take a written agreement (which would be illegal) for three "competitors" to coordinate to not undercut each other's profit too much.

The whole excellent management thing is only kind of important. And there are Buffet quotes to exactly that effect.

Special Investigation: The Dirty Secret Behind Warren Buffett’s Billions

America’s favorite investor loves monopoly, not free markets.

www.thenation.com

During that May 26, 2010, meeting, Buffett deflected responsibility for Moody’s actions. “I knew nothing about the management of Moody’s,” he told the federal investigators, explaining candidly why he owned so much stock: Moody’s faced practically no market competition.

“The single most important decision in evaluating a business is pricing power,” Buffett said. “If you’ve got the power to raise prices without losing business to a competitor, you’ve got a very good business.” The “big three” rating agencies—Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s, and Fitch—controlled 95 percent of the rating-agency market, an insurmountable advantage over would-be competitors. “If you’ve got a good enough business, if you have a monopoly newspaper or if you have a network television station,” Buffett concluded, “your idiot nephew could run it.”

It has been a very successful investment strategy, but it isn't good for society for major businesses to face limited competition.

We will have to agree to disagree on the interpretation of Buffett's statement 'revenue moat with an honest leader' and what it means.

As far as what is good for society(consumers) regarding business, monopolies are rarely good. People should keep this in mind when there is gov takeover of a sector. State run ___ almost always ends up with less for more cost (whether paid directly or indirectly). Standard Oil over a century ago or Microsoft 2 decades ago, the effect on pricing and quality can be dramatic.
But to take the only US (close to)monopoly I personally know of as an example: Google's 90+% web search business. Has it been bad for consumers? IMHO from a security privacy perspective yes(but that's not per se due to the monopoly) but from web search availability and advances? Arguably once could say it has been a boon to the web search capability for consumers.

But consumers are dreaming if they think: A. a big business will not use its deep pocket leverage. That can be bad but it can also be good (quicker downward pricing pressure for example) for consumers. B. that there will never be big businesses that can leverage their deep pockets, infrastructure, or deep customer penetration resources. Most business spaces start out with many but it gets whittled down to a few ](in the supply chain it can get whittled sometimes to one). In free enterprise it isn't likely to happen any other way than growth of sector to big business status . C. Consumers themselves make this choice. If you can educate them and get others to, a difference may be made.

 

[Abazigal]

That is kind of my point. He doesn't mention monopoly. He uses this great term "economic moat". But think about it for a second. What he means by a moat is a business that won't face much competition. When a business doesn't face much competition, then it can extract larger profits (either by raising prices or lowering service/quality; and often by doing a combination of both). The pain of larger prices or worse products falls on the consumer. The bigger the economic moat, the closer to a monopoly. Monopolies are considered bad because of the pain felt by consumers. Which is why consumers have through the power of their governments put in place anti-trust laws. But basically those laws have been poorly enforced for decades now. If there are two or three businesses in a space, the US government basically shrugs and says that is fine. It doesn't take a written agreement (which would be illegal) for three "competitors" to coordinate to not undercut each other's profit too much.

The whole excellent management thing is only kind of important. And there are Buffet quotes to exactly that effect.

Special Investigation: The Dirty Secret Behind Warren Buffett’s Billions

America’s favorite investor loves monopoly, not free markets.

www.thenation.com

During that May 26, 2010, meeting, Buffett deflected responsibility for Moody’s actions. “I knew nothing about the management of Moody’s,” he told the federal investigators, explaining candidly why he owned so much stock: Moody’s faced practically no market competition.

“The single most important decision in evaluating a business is pricing power,” Buffett said. “If you’ve got the power to raise prices without losing business to a competitor, you’ve got a very good business.” The “big three” rating agencies—Moody’s, Standard & Poor’s, and Fitch—controlled 95 percent of the rating-agency market, an insurmountable advantage over would-be competitors. “If you’ve got a good enough business, if you have a monopoly newspaper or if you have a network television station,” Buffett concluded, “your idiot nephew could run it.”

It has been a very successful investment strategy, but it isn't good for society for major businesses to face limited competition.

I feel it’s a matter of perspective.

Take the Apple Watch for example. It’s as successful as it is in part because Apple is able to integrate it with the iPhone on a level that the competition can’t.

Which then raises the question - to what extent is Apple allowed to privilege their own products with proprietary APIs vs having to make them equally accessible to all developers across the board?

On one hand, the promise of supernormal profits is precisely what drives companies like Apple to continue making great products for us consumers to buy.

On the other hand, am I as an iPhone user disadvantaged by essentially having the Apple Watch as the only “real” choice for me? The counterpoint is that if Apple were forced to give the competition access to the same underlying technology, they may not have bothered to come up with a product like the Apple Watch in the first place, because it would be too much work for no real profit. We would still be using fitbits and pebble watches and be worst off for it.

I think this is what he meant by “moat”. All my Apple products work so well together that there is less incentive to shop for competing alternatives. Is this unfair to the competition? Perhaps, but for the moment at least, I literally don’t care because I would rather have 1 great choice than numerous crappy ones.

That to me is the paradox of choice. If I am not getting more of what I want, then it’s meaningless to me. I care not for more choice, but for more meaningful choice.

 

[Bawstun]

I almost wish sales and the stock would plummet like a rock, at least then they’d have pressure to return to great design.

 

[newyorksole]

I feel it’s a matter of perspective.

Take the Apple Watch for example. It’s as successful as it is in part because Apple is able to integrate it with the iPhone on a level that the competition can’t.

Which then raises the question - to what extent is Apple allowed to privilege their own products with proprietary APIs vs having to make them equally accessible to all developers across the board?

On one hand, the promise of supernormal profits is precisely what drives companies like Apple to continue making great products for us consumers to buy.

On the other hand, am I as an iPhone user disadvantaged by essentially having the Apple Watch as the only “real” choice for me? The counterpoint is that if Apple were forced to give the competition access to the same underlying technology, they may not have bothered to come up with a product like the Apple Watch in the first place, because it would be too much work for no real profit. We would still be using fitbits and pebble watches and be worst off for it.

I think this is what he meant by “moat”. All my Apple products work so well together that there is less incentive to shop for competing alternatives. Is this unfair to the competition? Perhaps, but for the moment at least, I literally don’t care because I would rather have 1 great choice than numerous crappy ones.

That to me is the paradox of choice. If I am not getting more of what I want, then it’s meaningless to me. I care not for more choice, but for more meaningful choice.

I do NOT feel bad for any of these companies that complain about Apple not being open enough / not allowing their products to properly sync with Apple’s. There are tons of other ways to make money.

And if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.

 

[amartinez1660]

This is crazy, not that long ago it was all news that Apple was becoming the very first trillion dollars company… it reached it, lost it, reached again and now soon after it broke that record 2.5x? Surrounded by other new trillion dollar companies.
What gives? The tech domain just continues to explode upwards I guess?

 

[senttoschool]

Follow this thread if you're a believer that Apple Silicon will allow Apple to take 80% of the PC market's profits just like they do in the phone market.

I bought Apple stocks so I can use gains to buy an M1 laptop

I was so impressed with the M1 and so excited for the future of Apple Silicon that I decided to buy up Apple stocks. I'm sure that I will be buying many Apple Silicon Macs over the next 10 years. I will use any gains I get from Apple stocks to buy Macs. At the same time, I feel less guilty...

forums.macrumors.com

 

[One2Grift]

Follow this thread if you're a believer that Apple Silicon will allow Apple to take 80% of the PC market's profits just like they do in the phone market.

I bought Apple stocks so I can use gains to buy an M1 laptop

I was so impressed with the M1 and so excited for the future of Apple Silicon that I decided to buy up Apple stocks. I'm sure that I will be buying many Apple Silicon Macs over the next 10 years. I will use any gains I get from Apple stocks to buy Macs. At the same time, I feel less guilty...

forums.macrumors.com

Brother, I own Apple (my other 2: Google, XLE ETF) so I’ll be mind numbingly ecstatic if that happened. Forget becoming a 3 trillion market cap, it’d approach 4 trillion easily. But 80% isn’t pie in the sky, it’s pie past the sky entering the next galaxy. At 30% at least we are now earthbound and it’s simple pie in the sky.
If Apple Silicon (when Pro lines come out) caused shipments to spike from current 15% share to 30% of PC shipments? That would be staggering, 35 billion annual becomes 70 billion annual. That total could surpass Services sector (but Services will eventually surpass that). Stock would bust through 200 going to maybe 225. Ah pie in the sky, it would be phenomenal 😀

 

[MacBH928]

Your analysis is completely wrong.

1) A stock’s value has nothing to do with a previous price to which you’ve anchored your mind.

2) The pandemic objectively made AAPL stronger and improved their earnings.

3) The market is simply telling you $80 was too cheap for AAPL.

4) “The music stopping” is a tired argument with no basis in reality. Anyone waiting for that has lost money, as they all have over the last 140 years as stocks have continued to roar higher. The bulls always win.

5) AAPL is not an expensive stock for the earnings and growth it has produced.

1) The stock price has 2 values: One is whats on the books, accountant calculations. 2 is what people are willing to pay for it. The dutch tulip bubble said that people were willing to pay a price of a small house for one tulip. Just like the .com bubble where people paid crazy amounts for .com names. We all know where that went.

2) Yes but surely they didn't grow more than the growth they had from the 70s. Remember Apple started in the 70s and took them all the way until near 2020 to reach $1T in value. I don't see they grew that much over the past year.

3) Not necessarly, sometimes the market over value things like when the price of the Imperial Palace in Japan was equal to the value of the whole state of california if it was to be sold.

4) Yes if you buy stocks at reasonable price, or wait for them to grow over long periods of time like 20-40 years. Some companies reach a stock price and then fall down and never see that price again ever if not go bankrupt. Enron, Lehmann brothers, Kodak, Radio Shack, Blockbuster

5) According to Yahoo Finance, the AAPL stock P/E ration is 32. That means you need to collect 32 years of Apple profits to recover your investment then start make a profit. Am I correct?

Since this time last year Apple has successfully released three M1-based computers with superior performance per dissipated watt, at a lower cost, with more to come later this year. No doubt Apple's M-based cpu roadmap will further put Intel's to shame going forward.

That by itself demonstrates Apple's future is no longer beholden and shackled to Intel and its lethargic barely incremental CPU roadmap and long delays. To me, other tech enthusiasts, and industry pundits, that's huge and worthy of Apple's extra value right there.

I get it, but do you know how much $1T is? thats more than total worth of Intel+Nvidia+AMD combined. I doubt Apple gained so much more value because it decided to use M1 chips in their computers.

Intel+Nvidia+AMD are running the whole world on their CPU and GPUs. The WHOLE WORLD. Did Apple really gain the value of these 3 companies over a year's time? I doubt it.

 

[senttoschool]

Brother, I own Apple (my other 2: Google, XLE ETF) so I’ll be mind numbingly ecstatic if that happened. Forget becoming a 3 trillion market cap, it’d approach 4 trillion easily. But 80% isn’t pie in the sky, it’s pie past the sky entering the next galaxy. At 30% at least we are now earthbound and it’s simple pie in the sky.
If Apple Silicon (when Pro lines come out) caused shipments to spike from current 15% share to 30% of PC shipments? That would be staggering, 35 billion annual becomes 70 billion annual. That total could surpass Services sector (but Services will eventually surpass that). Stock would bust through 200 going to maybe 225. Ah pie in the sky, it would be phenomenal 😀

I think what you said will happen. Ming Chi Kuo already projects a 100% increase in Mac shipments. I think that's conservative. I think Apple Silicon is going to completely destroy the PC industry.

Eventually, I expect Apple to release a Macbook SE for $750 or so. It will be based on the current Macbook Air and will use cheaper components like LCD displays while the Air moves to Mini-LED.

Macbook SE will be faster than any PC laptop in CPU and machine learning at any price just like how the iPhone SE is faster than any other high-end Android phone out there.

Then Apple is going to completely own the premium market because nothing can compete with the speed, efficiency, battery life, temperature of Apple Silicon.

 

[Yokon54]

This is crazy, not that long ago it was all news that Apple was becoming the very first trillion dollars company… it reached it, lost it, reached again and now soon after it broke that record 2.5x? Surrounded by other new trillion dollar companies.
What gives? The tech domain just continues to explode upwards I guess?

It was extremely undervalued at a trillion and continues to be a reasonably priced asset given its earnings, growth, and interest rates.

Stocks are the only game in town.

 

[Yokon54]

1) The stock price has 2 values: One is whats on the books, accountant calculations. 2 is what people are willing to pay for it. The dutch tulip bubble said that people were willing to pay a price of a small house for one tulip. Just like the .com bubble where people paid crazy amounts for .com names. We all know where that went.

2) Yes but surely they didn't grow more than the growth they had from the 70s. Remember Apple started in the 70s and took them all the way until near 2020 to reach $1T in value. I don't see they grew that much over the past year.

3) Not necessarly, sometimes the market over value things like when the price of the Imperial Palace in Japan was equal to the value of the whole state of california if it was to be sold.

4) Yes if you buy stocks at reasonable price, or wait for them to grow over long periods of time like 20-40 years. Some companies reach a stock price and then fall down and never see that price again ever if not go bankrupt. Enron, Lehmann brothers, Kodak, Radio Shack, Blockbuster

5) According to Yahoo Finance, the AAPL stock P/E ration is 32. That means you need to collect 32 years of Apple profits to recover your investment then start make a profit. Am I correct?



I get it, but do you know how much $1T is? thats more than total worth of Intel+Nvidia+AMD combined. I doubt Apple gained so much more value because it decided to use M1 chips in their computers.

Intel+Nvidia+AMD are running the whole world on their CPU and GPUs. The WHOLE WORLD. Did Apple really gain the value of these 3 companies over a year's time? I doubt it.

Even bringing up to tulip craze or tech bubble completely misses the point on AAPL. They are literally the most profitable company in the world. There are no similarities. Apple has consistently produced earnings other companies can only dream about producing. They have also bought back $450B in stock and continue to buy back $20B per quarter while producing cash flow no other company can replicate.

The average company historically trades at 20 times. You can have an argument with yourself if this is reasonable. Apple is not the average company. 32 is completely reasonable, yes. Companies are valued for all future cash flows until judgment day.

Stocks are valued relative to other stocks and other investments as well. Apple at 32 may be higher than you like, but it’s lower than AMZN at 70, NFLX at 65, and MSFT at 40. With interest rates at 0, stocks are even more valuable because they are the only game in town.

Considering Apple’s double digit growth in top and bottom line, their dominance in the market, the recurring services revenue, buyback and cash position, it’s clear why the multiple is higher than the average company and is totally reasonable relative to other tech and the current interest rate environment.

You’re still not getting Apple’s story. It was completely undervalued for all the reasons I mentioned even at $1T. I bought a huge amount of the stock in 2014 because of this thesis. I understand the company inside and out because I have a huge financial interest in understanding it.

Apple produces over 2X more earnings than Intel, AMD, and NVDA combined and has a different capital structure. As an example, Intel has huge fixed costs and capital expenses for manufacturing chips. Apple doesn’t do that. AMD trades at almost 40 times earnings and makes about $2B in profits to Apple’s $75B in the last 12 months. NVDA is at almost 100X earnings.

Point is, Apple is far down the list of “expensive” stocks as I just proved. My advice is to ask yourself if you should buy it the next time you see it trading lower.