Shares of Apple Inc. [AAPL] today gained $3.75, or 2.68%, to set a new all-time closing high of $143.75 per share on heavy volume of 41,447,816 shares.
Apple’s previous 52-Week and All-Time High closing high was $140.00 set yesterday. AAPL’s all-time intraday high was set today at $144.181.
Apple’s 52 Week Low stands at $52.36, set on July 19, 2006.
Apple’s market value currently stands at $124,336,275,000.
AAPL quote via NASDAQ here.
The iPhone 18 Pro’s expected color options for 2026 include a striking new signature shade called “Dark Cherry” — a deep, wine-like red…
India’s government has dropped a proposal that would have required Apple, Samsung, and other smartphone makers to pre-install the country…
“Margo’s Got Money Troubles” — a new Apple TV series, based on the novel by Rufi Thorpe, was made by people who know good TV…
In a notable shift, BNP Paribas analyst David O’Connor upgraded Apple (AAPL) to Outperform (“Buy”) from Neutral and raised the price target…
Starting with iOS 26.4, Apple now supports AI chatbot apps on the iPhone via CarPlay.ChatGPT was the first to add support shortly…
No need to split the stock. Regardless of the stock’s price, it is the percentage move that matters. A stock that is at 100 and moves 2 points in a day, ending the day at 102 (for a 2% move), would, after a split, be at 50, ending the day at 51 (also a 2% move). In each case, the same amount that day was spent on the stock, and whether you had the stock pre or post split, your profit would be the same. Splits let poorer investors in, but they are also important if a company is relatively small and, as it grows, needs more liquidity in the market. Otherwise, there’s no use for a stock splitting. All those 3 and 4 point moves we’ve been seeing lately would simply be 1.5 or 2 point moves post split. People who say, “Oh, if Apple only split, I could afford 100 shares” would be equally served buying half the number of shares at the current price.
Regarding earnings, if AAPL disappoints–or even meets estimates rather than beats them–the stock could easily plummet to around 125, which is roughly where the 50-day moving average is as well as the top of its recent pennant consolidation pattern. I love Apple’s products, would NEVER buy non-Apple computers, and have profited nicely from the stock’s rise, and hope the rise continues, but the potential for a correction/consolidation certainly exists.
Also, regarding “fresh blood” entering the market, the rise we’ve been seeing is due primarily to institutions buying the stock: institutions constitute roughly 75% of stock trading. Individual investors may buy Apple’s products and give it the revenue to support Apple’s increasing stock price, but it’s the institutions who are largely responsible for moving the stock.
Again, it is the amount of money you spend on a stock that matters, not the number of shares you buy. For $3,000, I could buy about 1,000 shares of SIRI or about 20 shares of AAPL. I’d have many more shares of SIRI (and maybe feel richer), but which is the better investment? Any investor who thinks he is poor because he can only buy 20 shares of AAPL (or that AAPL should split to accommodate him) but rich because he can easily afford 1,000 shares of SIRI will never be in the game long enough to become rich. If AAPL split, it would cost half as much, but due to double the number of shares, it would move half as quickly (see my post from a few minutes ago…).
Again. There are good reasons for a stock to split. Making it cheaper for the “poorer” investors is not one of them.
@M.T. Wence
Please enlighten me.
What I found interesting is that NASDAQ fell and Apple’s shares still rose. That’s means that despite overall market sentiment the shares still rose. Now that’s an indication of the strength of the company and confidence in Apple’s leadership. Microsoft’s shares fell along with the rest of the market.
@ Mark
Your style is good but your points are weak.
“For $3,000, I could buy about 1,000 shares of SIRI or about 20 shares of AAPL.”
This is not the argument; we all know that multiplication is associative (20 * 50 = 50* 20), thank you very much. What you are describing here are the psychological effects of a stock split.
My argument is: the greater the number of players, the more insignificant a single player (institution or retail) becomes, hence enabling a healthier competition, and equal chances overall. A stock market or any market for that matter, is based on supply and demand correct?
Now for the sake of simplifying things, assume S stands for sell, B stands for buy and that we only have two players:
We get:
2(S)*2(B)
In essence both can sell and/or buy so in total we have 4 permutations.
Now assume we have n players (n > 2),
We get:
n(S)*n(B) which allows for more permutations, simple math really. The point is the more permutations (Thanks to a greater number of players), the less prone a stock is vulnerable to Algorithmic trading and to institutional trading, e.g. this would negate your point about 75% of trading being institutional. Clearly the only ones loosing here are big players.
My son was about to buy some more AAPL shares today, when my DSL service here in Texas crashed and just came back up — bummer. I told him to stop delaying and just buy, as it would not likely go below 140. He learned a tough lesson. He will buy Monday and stop looking for the dip that might come. You can’t afford to be on the sidelines while AAPL is running up. Big money wants in, and all dips are small and blown away by the stampeding bulls.
Stocks never stop going up, it’s a fact. Especially when they make the products which define your personality.
Having a stock split and thinking that it is a good thing is like having a 20 dollar bill and thinking you will somehow be better off if you exchange it for two 10 dollar bills.
If you have difficulty seeing that then I would suggest you stay away from the stock market.!
Ah, the joys of damnation by faint praise; it’s not often I get so left-handed a compliment.
You say in your first post that AAPL “needs” to split. AAPL doesn’t need to do anything merely because you feel it does. Nor does a stock, any stock, care about demographics, even the sacrosanct 18–30 age group you refer to. Those who want to buy AAPL will buy it regardless of their age. GOOG went to 500 despite the 18–30 year old demographic that loves their technology and their “do no evil” ethos. If Apple Inc. prospers, its price will rise.
You say I merely describe the psychological effects of a stock split (by the way, you’re welcome for the mini math lesson). What I illustrate is the psychology YOU exhibit when you say the stock “needs” to split so that “fresh blood” can enter. If you aren’t referring to the psychological effects of a stock split—such that a particular demographic feels better able to buy them—then what are you describing?
You write “the greater the number of players, the more insignificant a single player (institution or retail) becomes, hence enabling a healthier competition, and equal chances overall. A stock market, or any market for that matter, is based on supply and demand, correct?” A stock does not worry about “healthy competition” or “equal chances” for shareholders. All a stock needs is bidding to drive it up – whether two investors or two thousand investors. Two bidders on eBay can drive up the price of an item from $10 to $1,000 just as easily as ten bidders.
Then there are all those permutations you mention. What is important is not the number of permutations, but the price the buyers are willing to pay, regardless of how many there are. You make the mistake of assuming the market is a democracy or some financial utopia: a stock has no consciousness, conscience, or idealism; it responds only to buying power or selling pressure. The writings of Thomas Jefferson or John Locke are lost on your average stock. Ultimately your discussion of permutations is a quaint mathematical construct, but idealistic and irrelevant to how stocks behave. And more market participants—which you say will emerge should companies keep their stock price relatively low—will do nothing to aid smaller investors. Thousands of stocks have split, some many times, over the decades, and institutions now own a larger share of the market than they ever have. Apple, a large company, has about 865 million shares outstanding. The small trader you extol will buy perhaps one or two hundred shares of AAPL, while the institutions will buy hundreds of thousands or millions. It is the larger share blocks that move stock prices, not the measly few hundred shares you or I buy, so institutions will still control the market regardless of any stock split; they would hardly be the “only ones losing here.”
Returning to Apple’s “need” ‘to split, my guess is that Steve Jobs knows more about what AAPL “needs” than you do, and, so far, he feels confident that AAPL will do just fine without splitting. I’m sure if you wrote to him, he would agree with all your points and promptly split the stock. After all, he is known for eagerly agreeing with others and putting their opinions before his own.
It is MORE impressive because it was up significantly on a day the market was waaaaay down. But this stock has it all… growing share, pricing power, falling costs, growing earnings… AND a story that could double the whole business.
Nothing was more predictable than a letdown after the iphone release. Well guess what boys and girls… the stock market is the perfect mechanism for punishing such sure things. All the expectations of that letdown were in the stock before… but the iphone didn’t disappoint and…. wow.
And markets, being crowd psychology beasts, always OVERshoot.
There is so much potential left to realize. THESE, not the pre-Win 95 90s are Apple’s halcyon days. The innovation and style PLUS all the lessons learned during the mistakes of the previous times (best example was the wasy the killed the mini for the nano… not sitting still just because you’re ahead).
Just two questions: can they hire and manage enough talent to fulfill their potential? And what about manufacturing quality (needed to keep the brand polished)?
Did anybody see that Dvorak thinks Microsoft will (or was it should?) make its own computers? That is Zune Dell, HP and the rest. I don’t think MS is stupid enough to do this (when you’re already getting most of the profit out of 90%+ of PCs with zero marginal cost… why TF would you want to deal with the bother of making hardware)… and Dvorak is a “almost” stopped clock that jumps in time twice a day so he can ALWAYS be wrong… but gawd if MS made PCs, it would be the ultimate case of Apple-envy.
Don’t we all wish we owned Cupertino commercial real estate?
“All the expectations of that letdown were in the stock before… but the iphone didn’t disappoint and…. wow.”
The proof of that will be the 25th, and more importantly the trend over the next quarter.
The iPhone is in stock in all but 5 Apple stores nationwide, that suggests that the initial frenzy is over, and it was fairly short lived by consumer electronic standards.
“For $3,000, I could buy about 1,000 shares of SIRI or about 20 shares of AAPL.”
Ahhh, no for $3000 I could buy quite a bit more than 1,000 shares of SIRI or 20 shares of AAPL since I, like anyone else who is serious about investing, would buy on margin.
A split is a non-event. As such, if it costs money to apple (administration fees and whatever), I would prefer them not to do so.
@Mark
As I said originally your style is good but your points are weak, very weak:
You say:
“A stock does not worry about “healthy competition” or “equal chances” for shareholders. All a stock needs is bidding to drive it up – whether two investors or two thousand investors. Two bidders on eBay can drive up the price of an item from $10 to $1,000 just as easily as ten bidders.”
Comparing an Ebay auction which can only go up, or stay stagnant over its lifespan to a stock which can move up, down or stay stagnant on a second by second basis: just goes to show your blatant misunderstanding of the stock market.
You say:
“…Nor does a stock, any stock, care about demographics, even the sacrosanct 18–30 age group you refer to. Those who want to buy AAPL will buy it regardless of their age.”
How many 18-30 years old do you know can afford to trade BRK-A at $110,000 plus or even GOOG at $500 plus for that matter? Apple sells products that are targeted to the young and hip, and to ignore socio-economics would be a faux pas of monumental proportions. The more people have vested interests in the stock, the louder the company will be heard, it’s definitely not the older demographic that are flashing their iPhones, iPods, etc… at the gyms, schools, and social events so that you and I can grin from cheek to cheek every time AAPL closes at an all time high. And whether the people in question buy one or a thousand shares is irrelevant, they will still have vested interest and be even stronger ambassadors of the brand. So if splitting the stock will remove that psychological barrier I am all for it.
Before I go I don’t think SJ cares what you have to say either.
PS: Apple has split three times before; I am confident it will/needs to split again before the end of the year. Whether you believe that or not is your prerogative.
Well, you certainly are becoming more strident. If you think Apple needs to split, I’m not going to argue with you. Perhaps an earlier poster said it best when he wrote the following:
“Having a stock split and thinking that it is a good thing is like having a 20 dollar bill and thinking you will somehow be better off if you exchange it for two 10 dollar bills.
“If you have difficulty seeing that then I would suggest you stay away from the stock market.!”
I know Steve Jobs doesn’t care what I have to say — that’s my point: he really doesn’t care what anyone thinks about AAPL splitting, but I’m on this board making specious arguments about what AAPL needs to do.
At the May 10th, 2007 Apple Shareholders’ Meeting, Mr. Jobs was asked how Apple would decide when the stock would split. He answered the question by pointing to Google and Berkshire-Hathaway as arguments against a stock split. Now, this is a fact, not an argument on my part, or conjecture on anyone’s part, but a simple fact. You can bang your head against the wall, come up with all the permutations, combinations, and “reasons” why Apple needs to split, but that was Mr. Jobs’s response. Perhaps all those permutations of yours never occurred to him.
All this bieng said, I’m glad you’re confident that Apple “will/needs” to split again. What you will never understand is that while there are a few good reasons for a stock splitting, the reasons you have given are not among them.
Actually, I meant to say that I’m *not* on this board making specious arguments about what AAPL needs to do.
My apologies if I appeared strident, those were not my intentions. Thanks for sharing your views and reading mine as well. Even though I strongly disagree with you, it is still worth while hearing your predictions for earnings as far as stock movement, if you care to indulge of course.
Agreed. Thanks for sharing your views as well. It’s good to have a forum where diverse viewpoints can be discussed and debated.
Regarding AAPL’s movement in the short term, I’m not certain: Apple has sterling fundamentals (zero debt, about $13 billion in the bank, strong cash flow, strong year-over-year sales, excellent supply chain, accelerating growth rate in its Macintosh line, iPod still going strong…) so long-term I think it will continue to rise and be an excellent investment. Whether it will pass $200 in the next year is anyone’s guess (and a lot of people have been guessing). As for next few months, it’s hard to say, especially with earnings on Wednesday. Also, the iPhone is something of a wild card. Apple would be fine, long term, should the iPhone fizzle out, but some of AAPL’s current cost has iPhone success built in, so the stock would drop for a while if the phone didn’t work out. Though it has risen about 160% in the past year, which is obviously a lot, it is also coming out of a roughly 15-month consolidation that began in January of 2006, the breakout having occurred at the end of April of this year. Generally the longer the consolidation, the longer the subsequent rise, so, technically, this is one of several arguments for it go to further. Then there is the fanaticism that surrounds Apple, which plays into the bullish argument [the only other company I can think of that inspires “Apple-level” fanaticism is Harley Davidson]. Lord knows, I’d never buy any computer other than an Apple; I bought my first Macintosh in 1984 so I’m a long-time Mac lover.
My approach is to take a position in a stock and trade around that position using options. So, for Apple, I have a certain number of shares, but I’ll buy calls at certain points so I can better leverage my investment. When the technicals break down, I’ll generally exit the stock.
Overall, with AAPL, or any stock, my approach is to hold it as long as it “behaves” and close my position when it no longer does. I try to let the stock tell me what to do, rather than impose my will on the stock.
All this is a long way of saying that though I’m not sure where AAPL will go–other than up in the long term–I’ll be prepared to either buy more or sell it, whatever the circumstances warrant.
Regarding earnings, my view is that they will beat them, the estimate being about 71 cents per share for the quarter. It’s already been announced that at many stores, Apple’s already beaten their targets by 25% or more. Whether they will beat them by enough to fuel a continuation of the incredible advance we’ve had remains to be seen.
If AAPL misses, I think they will fall hard. Even if they meet estimates, I think they have a good chance of falling. Apple’s forward guidance–especially as it pertains to the iPhone–is also important.
“If AAPL misses, I think they will fall hard. Even if they meet estimates, I think they have a good chance of falling. Apple’s forward guidance–especially as it pertains to the iPhone–is also important.”
Did you get a degree in the totally freaking obvious?
I did indeed. It’s unfortunate that many investors fail to see the obvious though.
Should Apple fall on miss earnings, there are investors out there who will think something like, “How could this happen to me? How could this happen to Apple? Apple’s the greatest company in the world, doesn’t everyone realize that?!” I’m not excluding myself from having missed the obvious in the past. Everyone does it at one time or another.
“there are investors out there who will think something like, “How could this happen to me?”
No, there are idiot Apple fanboys who will think that. There may also be people who think they know something about investing that will think that, No investors will.
Yep, you’re right.