“With so many high profile, widely-owned institutional stocks struggling, it should not be a surprise that the biggest fish of them all, Apple… has stumbled,” William Koldus writes for Seeking Alpha. “Shares are down 13% YTD as earnings growth and forward expectations have both disappointed investors. Additionally, it is likely that institutional holders have sold Apple shares for liquidity as their other top holdings have struggled.”
“The end result has been a further sell-off in AAPL shares. The selling pressure, which began all the way back in April of 2015, has gained steam on the downside in 2016, bringing shares of the iconic firm to ten-year valuation lows and creating a potential long opportunity for contrarian investors,” Koldus writes. “The trailing-twelve-months price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of 10.3 is Apple’s cheapest from 2006 to 2015, with 2012’s P/E ratio of 12.1 and 2015’s P/E ratio of 11.4 the only close readings.”
“On a relative basis versus the S&P 500 Index, and compared to their prior lows, all valuation ratios are making new lows,” Koldus writes. “Thus, Apple shares are undoubtedly selling at their cheapest valuations in ten years.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: These are Crazy Eddie prices! His prices are Insaaane!
My dividend will buy more shares! Thank you Wall Street doofus’s!
Dear God, has this ANALyst never heard of the 1:7 stock split?
Apple is currently trading at $90 * 7 = $630 relative to 10 years ago (which was before the split).
These people are criminally negligent in their ANALyses.
The split is immaterial. The P/E ratio remains unchanged after a split. By discussing valuation in terms of the price relative to earnings (the P/E ratio or any of the other methods in the valuation history chart) he eliminates the need to adjust for splits and is, therefore correct.
“Valuation” of a company is not its stock price. Stock price means *nothing* without knowing the number of shares, which for almost all companies are constantly changing due to stock-based compensation and buybacks.
The only correct part of your post was the last sentence which I’m sure pretty much everyone who visits this site on a regular basis would agree with.
First you completely miss the point and have no grasp of the concept, then *you* call *them* idiots. Well done.
It’s somewhat strange but big investors are happily buying Amazon at $700 a share while cursing Apple at $90 a share. Might as well face the facts. Jeff Bezos appears to be about 100X smarter than Tim Cook when it comes to putting shareholder value into a company. The big investors believe Amazon will actually go up to $1000 a share while Apple will fall to below $80 a share and that’s probably how it will play out. Everyone knows for a fact Tim Cook has nothing in the pipeline for Apple. All of Wall Street believes Elon Musk can deliver 500,000 Tesla Model 3 vehicles on time while doubting Tim Cook can sell 50 million iPhone 7s.
This is how bad Apple has become as an investment. All faith in Apple is long gone and buried with Steve Jobs. No investor wants to touch Apple with a 50-foot pole and that’s a rather bad situation for a company sitting on a mountain of cash.
The key phrase in your second sentence is “putting shareholder value into a company.” Jeff Bezos has not created shareholder value except in its most basic crass sense of the irrational Amazon stock price.
The fact is, Bezos has been given a pass by Wall St for years which keeps drinking his Kool-Aid™ that you can make a company profitable by running it with negative margins until you run all your competitors out of business to achieve a de facto monopoly and then raise your prices. Or in his latest incarnation, *repress* shareholder value by using the profitable web services division to mask the oceans of red ink that the retail division has lost over the years. He is *destroying* shareholder value by not spinning that off as a separate company.
Now, you are correct in how WS views Apple. Apple could announce they have an invention that lets you live to be 150 years old, cures cancer, and gives your enemies incurable toenail fungus and their share price would not even go up $1. They are immune to the hype from Apple because they have always delivered and want more and the more no longer satisfies their cravings – like a lab rat pressing the bar to receive more cocaine only to find it doesn’t give him a higher high. So, instead, their affections flit to the next company that could be the next one to deliver that high.
And it’s hilariously pathetic how the law of large numbers doesn’t apply to Amazon or Google, but does to Apple. These bastards speak out both sides of their ass, and laugh their way to the bank and only pay a fraction of the taxes that you and I do thanks to the “carried interest” rule.
Speak for youself.
Ps: for every share sold there’s one bought…
“Smile when you read a headline that says ‘Investors lose as market falls.’ Edit it in your mind to ‘Disinvestors lose as market falls — but investors gain.’ Though writers often forget this truism, there is a buyer for every seller and what hurts one necessarily helps the other.”
Warren Buffet
“All faith in Apple is long gone and buried with Steve Jobs.”
Do you remember the day, when Steve Jobs presented the first iPod? There was general embarrasment and disappointment in the audiance, silence, no clapping hands at all! The stock fell 10% the following day…that was the way, Wall Street reacted. They never had an idea, what Apple is, thats the simple truth.
… And then there will be a real ‘correction‘:
GOOG: Plummet
AMZN: Plummet
AAPL: Flying
Meanwhile, topsy-turvy, cloud cuckoo land, screw loose, bonkers, out to lunch, round the bend, deranged WallNut Street on dope. 😛
You’re describing a judgement day revenge fantasy wet dream of the faithful. You know that, right?
I can dream. It could happen. 😉