“In the marketplace, Apple (AAPL) has transformed itself several times, from a money-losing, miscalculating maker of home computers to a creative curiosity and ultimately to a technology juggernaut. It will no doubt transform itself again as it invents and improves its products,” Dave Roeder reports for The Chicago Sun-Times.
“For investors, AAPL also is an evolving story. It’s classified as a ‘large growth’ stock, which means that it’s seen as a company with its best days in front of it. The price of the stock is supposed to reflect prospects rather than current results. And the current price of the stock, $320.56, seems rich to many,” Roeder reports. “But is it really? Based on price-earnings measures, Apple doesn’t trade at much of a premium compared with its tech brethren and it’s about even with the average for the S&P 500, even though it’s growing much faster than most companies in that index.”
Roeder reports, “Many analysts who follow Apple believe the shares will head higher despite having been on an incredible ride. AAPL was less than $100 a share in early 2009. Robert W. Baird & Co. analysts last month issued their first report on Apple, concluding that the company supported a price target of $410 a share.”
Full article here.
“It’s morning again in Cupertino…”
How long in this thread before someone comments about how ‘it’s time” for a stock split?
And yeah, I think AAPL could ride much higher when you consider their share of the worldwide PC market is still very small.
@MDN
Keep sending stories, we’re having a blizzard in Minnesota and need some good reading.
I think it’s time for a stock split.
“concluding that the company supported a price target of $410 a share.”
Strike the word “target” from that sentence and then it will be correct.
Apple stock on Wed, Dec 10, 2008 – $100.06, Wed, Jun 10, 2009 – $140.25, Mon, Jan 11, 2010 – $210.11, Fri, Jun 11, 2010 – $253.51
and yesterday Sat, Dec 11, 2010 – $320.56. I would say the growth is darn near extraordinary and in line with $400 per share in the future.
@ LateRegistrant
No stock split. It still retains value at current levels.
No stock split. AAPL will be the new Berkshire Hathaway
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
One o’ these days the _market_ will actually “get it” and price Apple in line with the analists. Until then Apple will always be the first stock to get hammered in profit-taking sessions and not valued appropriately.
“Based on price-earnings measures, Apple doesn’t trade at much of a premium compared with its tech brethren and it’s about even with the average for the S&P 500, even though it’s growing much faster than most companies in that index.”
That is what many of us have been saying. Reality finally finds a grip in the media.
I love this forum. The humor/sarcasm/irony impaired usually write the funniest posts.
split?? why? so some asshole who complained about it being to expensive at $100 a share can invest in it?
pfft.
Spilt baby split !!
3 to 1
4 to 1
Buy AAPL anyway which way it goes!!!
Berkshire Hathaway.
Yes, nice shirts.
Apple will continue to succeed and grow because of two factors.
One is MONEY. Even without its huge cash hoard, Apple has money from ongoing profits that few in tech can come close to matching. The competition is always trying to catch up to Apple and Apple has the funds to out-spend the competition, if needed, to stay ahead and introduce new innovations at an ever-faster pace. No will be able to afford to compete against Apple.
The other is STRATEGY. Money isn’t everything. Ten years ago, it was Microsoft who had all the money; Microsoft still has plenty of money. Yet they lost that advantage because their primary strategy was (and still is) to copy what has been successful for others and try to take over through brute force. Even Apple, in Steve Jobs’s absence, tried to succeed by being more like Microsoft, and almost went bankrupt. In contrast, Apple (after the return of Jobs), seems to intentionally avoid copying anyone else. Apple creates new major markets categories (iPod and iPad) OR enters well-established markets in a new way (iTunes Store for music retailing and iPhone) and redefines them.
Being “first” allows Apple to use its resources efficiently, because they can start relatively “small-scale” and keep adding new features and upgrades over time. So the iPod starts as a simple 5GB digital MP3 player for Mac only; then Apple adds the Windows support, the iTunes (Music) Store, color display, video playback, ever-increasing storage, etc. The iPhone starts out on EDGE (no 3G), with no third-party apps and multi-tasking limited to what Apple allowed; then Apple opens the App Store, upgrades to 3G, allows third-party apps to multi-task, improves camera capabilities, and gradually adds many more features. iPad (and probably Apple TV too) will follow the same path.
The copycat competition must match whatever Apple has done up to that point (over several years), and release it ALL on DAY ONE, or their product fails to meet customers’ expectations. And they have months to do the development instead of the years. For example, a new smart phone platform such as Windows Phone 7 is expected to have third-party apps and a well-stocked “app store” immediately. And their product must be priced lower than Apple’s established product, or the consumer has no reason to choose it. Doing all of that is very difficult and VERY inefficient.
Meanwhile, as everyone else flails about trying to copy Apple’s “next big thing” as quickly as possible, Apple keeps making more money while using that money more efficiently. So yes, I think Apple “best days” are in the future.
“Apple has transformed itself several times, from a money-losing, miscalculating maker of home computers….”
Even in the worst of times, losses for Apple were infrequent. At it’s depths, the company had over $1.5B in cash, no debt, and showed a profit most quarters.
As far as miscalculating, that was done by the idiots sitting in the big chair during Jobs’ banishment: 1985-1997. During all the brainlessness of Sculley, Spindler, and Amelio, Apple engineers remained the best in the business.
This sort of mythology are right up there with the notion that Bill Gates rescued Apple, when it was Jobs called the truce, preferring to focus on creation instead of litigation. True, Gates got $150M worth of Apple stock, but he paid $400M and also restarted Office for the Mac, in consideration for Jobs dropping the suit. Gates sold off the AAPL position fairly quickly, for what he thought was a decent profit.
Past history is somehow affecting the price of the action: twice the action fell because of Steve Jobs illness. Investors know that if infortunately he has a third fight against cancer, the action would fell (illogically, I know) to maybe 150 $. So somehow that notion handicaps the market value of APPL for those looking for Mid to short term investment…
I say it’s time for an 8:1 reverse split to cancel out the three previous 2:1 splits. One original share at the 1980 IPO price of $22 is now worth over $2,560.
AAPL’s best days might be behind it (it’s FAR better to get it early), but the company itself is in its strongest position ever.
When Apple places its bets, it goes all in. Remember the flash bet when Apple released the Nano? Apple is doing a fantastic job of keeping costs down for the Touch and the iPad. What is their next focus? Could be new, high res screens. If they put a retina display in an iPad, I’m there. Doesn’t matter if the base model is 700 bucks. Or a 1000 bucks! Just put it in there. It will sell.
Considering Apple have hedged 10% market share, the only way is up if they can keep selling more units.
$1000 by the end of 2013
$2000 by 2015
$5000 by 2018
Meh, Apple will only go up as long as Mr. Jobs is alive and well. This is my only concern for the future of the stock.
yeah – I want a higher hi res screen dammit!
@M159
“True, Gates got $150M worth of Apple stock, but he paid $400M and also restarted Office for the Mac, in consideration for Jobs dropping the suit. Gates sold off the AAPL position fairly quickly, for what he thought was a decent profit.”
Just think…… 1997 ish and Apple stock is $10 a share. 150 Million buys 15 million shares which Bill quickly sells off for maybe 20$ a share. Quick profit.
2010 Dec 15 million shares at 325 per share = $ 4,875 million. or almost 5 Billion dollars… Yep. Steve Ballmer likes his and Steve’s plan… He likes it alot.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
Aint it funny how some things are so humorous. If Gates doubled his money he made $ 150 million dollars and lost over 4.5 Billion dollars.
Just a thought here for Christmas.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
en
Opps , forgot to mention.
If Bill Gates took his $ 300 Million (150 x 2) and invested it in Microsoft stock 10 years ago…. he would still have only $300 million.
Yep, I like his plan a lot too.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
en