Jim Cramer: Why Tim Cook is Babe Ruth

Apple’s stock should be worth more, says Mad Money‘s Jim Cramer while comparing Tim Cook’s performance to Mary Barra’s General Motors.

Some stocks just might be worth a lot more than you think. Sometimes the CEOs know it, but other times they don’t. Apple’s Tim Cook, for example, knows it. He
‘s been borrowing money and buying back shares of Apple – BUY! BUY! BUY! BUY! BUY! – because he understands his stock is much cheaper than most people realize. In an era where the average stock sells at about 18x earnings, it;s out and out ridiculous than Apple sells at a mere 14x earnings given its balance sheet, sustainability of earnings, breadth of product, and wondrous engineering… In short, Apple’s stock should be worth more, perhaps much more. Which is why, as always, I say, “Don’t trade it, own it!”
– Jim Cramer

[protected-iframe id=”554b9864b50bd18a5811c8c36e735c38-17146794-18685410″ info=”http://player.theplatform.com/p/gZWlPC/cnbc_global?playertype=synd&byGuid=3000353714&size=530_298″ width=”530″ height=”298″]

Direct link to video here.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Joe Architect” for the heads up.]

25 Comments

  1. I would agree with this except Tim Cook’s radical politics which we are just beginning to see hints of suggests he is not able to separate Apple business from personal business. The biggest concern, his huge billion solar boondoggle will cost a lot of money and produce energy at a much higher cost than a small natural gas plant, all to do political grandstanding. But in the process, Apple will spoil a huge patch of California countryside with a solar farm that cannot ever achieve the efficiency of true energy sources. Political preening at a cost of $1 billion. Babe Ruth would not do that.

    1. First, you are flat-out wrong about solar costs, especially at the scale of the Apple-related facility. Even at present fossil fuel costs, solar is now cheaper. Second, when did it become “radical politics” to be concerned with national security? The US needs to end its reliance on foreign sources of energy, especially when it comes from the most dangerous part of the world. Alternative energy from solar, wind and even nuclear simply makes the US more secure. Finally, solar plants – particularly in places like California (I drive by one almost every day near Palm Springs) – have repeatedly demonstrated their profitability, so your “boondoggle” label isn’t even close to being true. So please take your Fox News ignorance back to your mom’s basement, and Tim Cook will continue to run the most insanely profitable company in world history.

  2. I would agree with this except Tim Cook’s radical politics which we are just beginning to see hints of suggests he is not able to separate Apple business from personal business. The biggest concern, his huge billion solar boondoggle will cost a lot of money and produce energy at a much higher cost than a small natural gas plant, all to do political grandstanding. But in the process, Apple will spoil a huge patch of California countryside with a solar farm that cannot ever achieve the efficiency of true energy sources. Political preening at a cost of $1 billion. Babe Ruth would not do that. But then, he was not gay.

        1. If you really feel that way, sell your apple stock, buy some android crap and go away. Apple is striving to be a corporation with a conscience- while still being the most profitable company in the history of mankind. Tim’s personal life is his business…

          1. Paying double the cost for a fuel that is only good eight hours a day and which will harm the California environment all so you can appease leftist environmentalists who know nothing about science is stupid and hurts shareholders. Why does honest criticism upset you so?

            1. Precisely. Because they are not cost effective and are only built because of government subsidies and to make leftists feel good while they waste precious land, kill endangered bird species and blind pilots.

            2. @hoffbegone: You’ve SEEN wind and solar farms abandoned? Ok, provide us any evidence of this – since you’ve seen them with your own eyes, where are they located? What type of farm? Can you reference any news accounts of them?

              Yeah, I didn’t think so.

              I get tired of ideologues just making crap up that supports their ignorant points of view.

            3. Let me note that some solar and wind facilities have, in fact, been decommissioned, especially those built in the 70s and 80s, when some of the technology wasn’t ready for prime time and efficiency levels were much lower than they are today. Interestingly, in most cases (especially those involving wind), the old structures have been torn down and replaced with new.

              But this happens with other energy technologies, too. About a decade ago I was involved with a real estate deal near Grand Terrace (CA) which was adjacent to an aging fossil-fueled power plant. It was inefficient and a huge eyesore. After several ownership changes, the facility was demolished; all that is left is a power substation.

            4. You may be unaware that many of the largest solar companies, like Solyndra, which received massive federal subsidies, went bankrupt after their Democrat donor executives ran through the hundreds of millions of taxpayer money they were given. There were many “Solyndras” that got huge amounts of federal money and promptly went bankrupt. You probably don’t read the publications that provide the obituaries for these Democrat run companies.

        2. Spending a billion on solar is a better investment than a billion spent on : R&D for vapor ware
          Production of poorly made products that end up unsold in warehouses and landfill sites
          Marketing poorly made copycat products
          Disinformation about competitors products 😀

          1. Solar power is not an “investment.” It is an extra cost over using the best available power, be it natural gas, hydro, nuclear or even coal. All these are lower cost, more reliable and less negative impact on the environment.

            1. One more time, Kent: You are flat out wrong. Based on the LCOE (levelized cost of electricity – an widely used power industry metric), solar is substantially less expensive that natural gas when it is used in peaker plants (which happens to be one of the most popular uses of natural gas when generating electric power). At present, it is roughly equal to nuclear, and is close to coal (and should be cheaper by 2017 – without the environmental side effects). And these comparisons are based on current efficiencies – older coal plants are already more expensive per KW than modern solar. So please take you pathetic ignorance back to your mom’s basement, where – doubtlessly – the sun don’t shine.

            2. Ralph – one more time, solar is nothing more than a supplemental source since it is only available less than a third of the day. It requires subsidies to be attractive. You don’t have a clue about the production of energy.

    1. In the interest of apposing the “radical politics” of utilizing the sun for energy, I recommend you back up your words with action, and stop using the sun for energy in your daily life.

      Food has to be the first thing you change. All the energy keeping your body alive comes from eating plants, fueled by the sun. Even your meat is plant fed animals. Here’s how you remedy that: there’s a type of mushroom that grows in complete darkness, extracting all its energy from bat shit. Find some yourself a completely dark cave and some spores, and start growing your own non-solar food supply! Only then can free your body from that radical politics of solar energy. Call it the batshit sensible diet.

      Transportation is another thing you should change. Most vehicles run on fossil fuel energy, which we all know is solar energy sequestered by decomposed plants. I suggest getting a bicycle, which you can power with your own body, which by now powered by 100% non-solar fungi. Horse drawn carriage is another option too, as long as you can convince the horses to eat cave mushrooms instead of straw, carrots, and other radical solar energy sources.

      You’re going to have to have to stop using the sun for light and warmth, too. Every time you see without turning on a light, you’re using solar energy, like a degenerate freeloader. You’re already visiting a cold dark cave regularly to farm mushrooms. I suggest you just stay in the cave, never venturing out in daylight. This will make your skin turn completely albino, like most cave dwelling animals. This is a good sign: losing skin pigment is a sign of your freedom from the radical politics of solar energy. Call it your white badge of honor.

      Best of luck, kent.

  3. I’m not upset at all. Apple is not paying for fuel. They’re paying for a renewable energy system. It has a return on investment. Granted it’s not the cheapest source of energy right now. I think it’s wise to develop all of alternative energy sources. Environment no withstanding,, we are one Middle Eastern nuclear skirmish away from $500/ barrel oil…One Russian skirmish away from triple the natural gas prices. America needs energy independence. If more companies do this it will become cheaper and more available for everyone.I don’t agree with a lot of the climate change science and I certainly don’t agree with most of this climate change politics. I don’t mind seeing private money do these projects…the farm is 2 days profits for apple–and last time I checked, my stock is killin it.

  4. Note: This is all satire. You know the /shjtt (satire, humor, joke tall tale tag).

    I don’t know where to enter this amazing debacle about solar energy but considering Apple’s country of origin I am quite shocked to see how long it’s going on without anyone bringing up the parameter of how good each energy source is a killing people.

    I got the so called stats from an article called “What’s the Deadliest Power Source?” by Brian Merchant. Should be a good reference to start off with, especially since it is American centric.

    Wind Power: 133 people since the 70s.
    Oil and Gas: Seven times the national average, according to the Center for Disease Control. during 2003 to 2009 … 716 oil and gas extraction workers were killed on-the-job during 2003 to 2009.

    Solar power: At least three deaths of rooftop solar installers in California since 2009.

    There is a nice graph of “Deaths per Terrawatt Hour by Energy Source” showing how deadly the various power sources are.

    Of course that’s just one parameter, and one should not forget that solar power is still a developing technology, an investment one. Sure it may not be as efficient, sure it may be more expensive, sure it has an environmental impact as all power sources do but it’s still a technology under development. What Apple and other customers are doing are investing in solar energy, part of that investment will go into R&D to hopefully make solar energy cheaper, more effective with less environmental impact. Cars changed the same way when they first came on the scene to compete with horses. Of course this is all moot as the population continues to increase the way it is going. Making an energy source run 10% cleaner can cause more pollution if there is a 50% increase usage of that energy source.

    Now the comment about Babe Ruth in the video I think were about Babe Ruth was asked by a reporter what he thought of his yearly salary of $80,000 being more than President Hoover’s $75,000. His response was, “I know, but I had a better year than Hoover.” I think that it fits as an analogy, Tim Cook had a better year than whatever president is currently in office.

    Someone threw out a statement about Babe Ruth “But then, he was not gay.” a comment that certainly does not equate with honest criticism and ironically there is some commentary that President Hoover may have been gay or bisexual or something.

    Hmmm a straight baseball player doing better than a (possibly gay) president used as an analogy for a gay CEO doing better than a (possibly straight) president. Looks to me that the message could be, gay or straight, when you know how to play ball you can do better than even a president of the United States.

    Of course that hasn’t been hard to achieve over the last while, at least in the integrity department.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.