Why Apple’s share price could go as low as $60

“Some say Apple is headed to $200 in a year,” Ken Goldberg writes for TheStreet. “Technical analysis says otherwise. In fact, quite the opposite.”

“Back in July, the decision support engine warned to exit Apple shares while they still enjoyed triple digit pricing status. Within a month, share prices fell from the 125-zone to the August 24 low near 90,” Goldberg writes. “They’ve bounced nicely since, but are not done fulfilling their destiny, which includes a probing of the 75 +/-5 area, with growing probability that 60 +/-5 will be seen.”

Goldberg writes, “The Apple is about to fall farther from the tree than it did at the August harvesting.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: $60? We’d certainly back the truck up for that.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “David E.” for the heads up.]


  1. At 60, Apple could almost buy itself and go private. And these silly [insert stronger adjective] writers could go and write nonsense about some other company.

    1. I’m not sure Apple can buy back more than they set out to in their last buy back stockholder vote. On the other hand they could just announce a privatization and buy out all the shares whether the shareholder wants to sell or not.

    2. I am afraid that is impossible, tincan2012. A corporation is owned by its shareholders. As corporate assets are used to buy back shares, the ownership in the company is simply concentrated in a smaller number of shares. Apple would still have considerable value to investors, even if every bit of Apple’s liquid assets were expended in the stock buy back campaign.

      If apple could somehow buy back hundreds of millions of shares, the owner of the very last share would own Apple as the sole stockholder and control all remaining assets. So Apple could never buy itself back, even in this purely theoretical and impossible thought experiment.

      Please folks, put this meme to rest, once and for all. A corporation cannot buy itself back using internal assets. It takes external funds to acquire a corporation.

      1. Not really true. A corporation can borrow and buy its shares. And it doesn’t have to retire the shares it purchases; it can hold them as treasury stock. It can issue treasury stock to its employees or executive team (or retire them).

        And Apple has been aggressive with borrowing in order to achieve its objectives, specifically to effectively free up some foreign cash without actually repatriating. If Apple’s stock dropped to some insane level like $60, you can bet you’d see the board approving a huge buyback.

    3. As several others have pointed out Apple cannot simply buy the shares using it own money or debt. The shareholders own that.
      Someone would need to do a dell and raise money independent and propose an offer to buy all the stock from shareholders. It would require probably close to $1 trillion to be raised. I can’t imagine that could ever happen.

  2. Not impossible, but consider how improbable $60 per share for AAPL would be (without Apple doing another stock split). Apple likely has well over $200B as pure cash by now. Apple has taken on low-cost long-term debt (instead of paying a high federal tax to repatriate overseas cash), but that is comparatively small. The “net positive” cash on hand is probably about $30 per AAPL share.

    If AAPl ever drops to $60, that means HALF of Apple value is its cash hoard. So, Apple’s ongoing business is only worth $30 per share (about $170B total)?

    1. I say they’re both crazy or high on dope. How about the stock going back up to where it was earlier in the year and we can talk about it at that point. Forget Apple’s cash hoard because it’s overseas and won’t be touched. Wall Street considers it not existing, so shareholders should also look at it that way. I’m sure Apple will never touch that money until there’s some repatriation tax holiday.

  3. Morons… Drawing voodoo/ bogus Arbitrary lines on any chart and claiming its science..
    U may as well go To psychics and ask their opinion..

    These freaks have to be stoped … They are destroying whats left markets credibility , reporting, analysis and journalism….

    1. I wonder if all those terms and names you are throwing around could be applied to yourself?

      Moron, voodoo, bogus, freak, not credible etc. and to top it all, spelling and punctuational challenged.

      1. Maybe he’s on a mobile. In any case, the grammar police are persona non grata around here. As for the substance of his post, I can’t aee where he’s wrong, except he left out the reading of the goat entrails. I have seen them do that up on the trading floor.

Reader Feedback

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