Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #38809 > unrolled thread

Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-23 17:07 -0500
    Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-23 17:41 -0500
    Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-23 17:54 -0500
      Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-23 23:04 -0500
        Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-01-23 23:05 -0500
          Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-23 21:27 -0700
            Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-24 08:06 -0800
        Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-01-24 06:03 +0000
          Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-01-24 03:56 -0500
            Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-01-24 17:34 +0000
        Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-24 08:01 -0800
          Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-24 15:34 -0500
            Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-24 13:44 -0700
              Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Howard.not@home.com (Howard) - 2013-01-24 23:08 +0000
                Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-24 19:12 -0600
                  Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Howard.not@home.com (Howard) - 2013-01-25 01:52 +0000
                  Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-25 04:57 -0500
                    Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-25 07:38 -0800
                    Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Howard.not@home.com (Howard) - 2013-01-27 18:33 +0000
                      Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-27 15:45 -0500
                        Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-28 10:46 -0600
            Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-01-24 16:04 -0500
              Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-24 16:58 -0700
                Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-24 19:20 -0500
                  Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-01-24 19:50 -0500
                  Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-24 16:52 -0800
                    Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-25 04:50 -0500
                      Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-01-25 15:23 +0000
                        Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-25 07:39 -0800
                        Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-01-25 10:58 -0500
                      Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-25 07:39 -0800
                      Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-25 11:05 -0700
                        Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-01-25 13:27 -0500
                          Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-25 12:42 -0700
                            Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-01-25 16:56 -0500
                              Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-25 15:10 -0700
                                Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-01-25 20:53 -0500
                                  Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-25 19:59 -0700
                                    Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-25 23:43 -0500
                                      Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-26 05:16 -0500
                                        Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-26 14:03 -0500
                                          Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-26 15:08 -0500
                                            Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-26 16:02 -0500
                                      Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-26 12:16 -0700
                                        Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-26 14:44 -0500
                                          Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-26 13:28 -0700
                                            Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-26 16:14 -0500
                                    Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2013-01-26 00:29 -0500
                                      Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2013-01-26 05:18 -0500
                                      Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-26 12:13 -0700
                            Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-25 18:04 -0500
                              Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-25 16:42 -0700
                                Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-25 23:30 -0500
                                  Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2013-01-26 12:24 -0700
                        Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2013-01-25 18:01 -0500
                  Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-24 16:53 -0800
                    Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-24 19:18 -0600
                      Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-25 07:15 -0800
                  Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-01-24 19:59 -0500
                    Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-25 07:26 -0800
                      Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-01-25 16:07 -0500
                        Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-25 13:30 -0800
                          Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-01-26 09:13 -0500
                            Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-26 13:24 -0800
                              Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-01-26 16:58 -0500
                                Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-26 14:10 -0800
                                  Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-01-26 17:16 -0500
                                    Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-26 14:25 -0800
                                      Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-01-27 09:27 -0500
                                        Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-27 09:19 -0800
                                          Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2013-01-28 19:41 -0500
                                            Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-28 19:17 -0800
                                      Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-28 09:56 -0600
                                  Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-28 09:54 -0600
                  Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-01-25 02:59 +0000
                    Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-25 07:42 -0800
            Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-24 16:03 -0800
            Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2013-01-24 16:09 -0800
    Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2013-01-24 15:42 +0100
    Re: Apple Q1 2012 Financial Results Howard.not@home.com (Howard) - 2013-01-24 23:08 +0000

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#38997

On 13-01-26 05:16, Kurt Ullman wrote:

>    Of course it is based on what the shares you bought 10 years ago 
> cost. Net current value is price now minus price paid. Using 1-26 
> prices, it would have gone from $14.24 to $439.88 during that time 
> frame.

Net current value is how much cash you would get by selling your shares
today at $439.88 per share minus brokerage fees. It is not related to
when you bought them or hwo much you paid for them.

Whether you bough AAPL at $100 or at $700,  you current net value is the
number of shares multupled by current price.

If you goto a bank and they assess your net current value, they base it
on current value of your stocks.

To the taxman, it is all different because capital gains tax is applied
to the difference in value when you bought and sold the assets. (and a
revenue tax on dividends)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39007

In article <51042896$0$64425$c3e8da3$5e5e430d@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 13-01-26 05:16, Kurt Ullman wrote:
> 
> >    Of course it is based on what the shares you bought 10 years ago 
> > cost. Net current value is price now minus price paid. Using 1-26 
> > prices, it would have gone from $14.24 to $439.88 during that time 
> > frame.
> 
> Net current value is how much cash you would get by selling your shares
> today at $439.88 per share minus brokerage fees. It is not related to
> when you bought them or hwo much you paid for them.

     The net current value in every econ or accounting class I have ever 
taken is current price - purchase price. 

> 
> Whether you bough AAPL at $100 or at $700,  you current net value is the
> number of shares multupled by current price.
Minus what you paid for them. 

> 
> If you goto a bank and they assess your net current value, they base it
> on current value of your stocks.
Minus what you paid for them. 

> 
> To the taxman, it is all different because capital gains tax is applied
> to the difference in value when you bought and sold the assets. (and a
> revenue tax on dividends)
   Every loan form I have ever filled out wanted net worth which is 
after what you purchased something for in this case.
-- 
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the bastards."-- Claire Wolfe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39011

On 13-01-26 15:08, Kurt Ullman wrote:

>      The net current value in every econ or accounting class I have ever 
> taken is current price - purchase price. 

I must live in a different universe.

net current value is number of shares owned multipled by value of each
share.


"current-price - purhase price" would be capital gains. It would not be
"current value".


>    Every loan form I have ever filled out wanted net worth which is 
> after what you purchased something for in this case.

For stock equity and other investments, it is the amount of cash that
could be obtained if the investment were liquidated today. In some
cases, the bank will factor in early termination costs for term
equities, in other cases they won't.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39000

In article <51035f0b$0$13431$c3e8da3$dd9697d2@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> As the stock drops, you still need to buy food which costs the same. So 
> you needto sell more shares and your total capital value drops.

You seem to believe that people have no income, but only the value of their 
stock, which they need to sell in order to buy food or pay their mortgage.

-- 
Ignore this sig.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39006

On 13-01-26 14:16, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> You seem to believe that people have no income, but only the value of their 
> stock, which they need to sell in order to buy food or pay their mortgage.

Yes, there are people like that. It is called people who live off their
investments.

Self employed people whose retirement plan is fully self funded will
life that way from income generated by investments.  They may only sell
shares when they need extra cash (such as paying for trip down south in
winter), or they may have regular share sales as the non-dividend
yielding shares increase in value.

assume AAPL were still without dividend. You buy 100 shares at $500
yielding capital value of $50,000

As the value of AAPL rises, you sell shares to bring total back back to
$50,000. This also allows you to spread capital gains tax over many
years since you sell bit by bit.

But when AAPL starts to drop, you no longer have that "interest" that
you can collect by selling a few shares while keeping capital at
$50,000. So you might as well sell all shares and invest elsewhere where
you get some form of revenue rthat doesn't eat into your $50,000 worth
of capital.

Dividends change things a bit, but they are generally a small proportion
of the total returns on investment.  In the case of AAPL, capital gains
was the primary (and by huge margin) form of return on investment.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39010

In article <51043238$0$11725$c3e8da3$69010069@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> > You seem to believe that people have no income, but only the value of 
> > their stock, which they need to sell in order to buy food or pay their 
> > mortgage.
> 
> Yes, there are people like that. It is called people who live off their 
> investments.

And for the most part, they do that by living off the dividends and 
interest from those investments, not by selling off their stocks.  If they 
lived off the sale of those stocks, they will eventually have nothing left.

-- 
Ignore this sig.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39012

On 13-01-26 15:28, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> And for the most part, they do that by living off the dividends and 
> interest from those investments, not by selling off their stocks.  If they 
> lived off the sale of those stocks, they will eventually have nothing left.


If you invest in non dividend growth stocks, you get 0 revenue unless
you sell shares.

If you invest $50,000 in company X, the goal is to maintain capital
equity at $50,000. So when share price increases, you can sell some
shares to generate revenue, while keeping total capital invested in that
company at $50,000. So while the number of shares owned goes down, the
total amount invested in the company stays at or above the level you
invested in.


This only works when share price rises over time.  When share price
stops rising, you are better off selling those shares since this is no
longer a growth stock and you are better off investing in more stable
dividend yielding stocks or putting it in a bank account that gives you
0.000001% interest.

Money moves to investments that yield the most return. When a stock
stops providing better returns than elsewhere, money flows out of it.

Investment strategies are very different depending on whether you are
building a retirement fund or drawing from it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38983

In article <michelle-FD6935.19595125012013@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <barmar-6AFDE3.20530125012013@news.eternal-september.org>,
>  Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> > > > > Dividends and other income/expenses aside, the value of the stock 
> > > > > does not affect how much cash I have on hand or in my bank 
> > > > > account.
> > > > 
> > > > True, but it affects how much cash you could get if you need to. 
> > > > When the stock price drops, you have less ability to raise money.
> > > 
> > > True, but that's a different matter.
> > 
> > Why? Your wealth is essentially equivalent to how much "stuff" (and 
> > services) you can buy.
> 
> But only if you sell the stock; if you don't sell it, you don't have that 
> money.

But you can get it if you want it, so it's equivalent to money. That's 
what "fungible" means.

Maybe if we were talking about non-liquid securities, you would have a 
better point. But they also don't generally have fluctuating prices.

> 
> > What's so special about "cash on hand"? And when you say that, do you 
> > include "cash in the bank"? You have to perform a transaction to get 
> > that into your hands, it's not much different from the transaction you 
> > have to do to sell stock or bonds.
> 
> Yes, I include cash in the bank, cash in my mattress, etc.  But the 
> transaction to get cash out of my bank account is quite different from 
> selling stocks.

What's so different? In one case you tell a bank teller "Give me my 
money", in the other you tell a broker "Give me my money." The only 
difference is that in the second case the amount of money could be less 
than you originally put in.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38989

In article <barmar-C6A567.00294926012013@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> What's so different? In one case you tell a bank teller "Give me my 
> money", in the other you tell a broker "Give me my money." The only 
> difference is that in the second case the amount of money could be less 
> than you originally put in.

Technically so can the first, at least in spending power. Heck right 
now, money markets, etc., are paying less than inflation so you are 
essentially paying the bank to keep track of your money.
-- 
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the bastards."-- Claire Wolfe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38998

In article <barmar-C6A567.00294926012013@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> > Yes, I include cash in the bank, cash in my mattress, etc.  But the 
> > transaction to get cash out of my bank account is quite different from 
> > selling stocks.
> 
> What's so different? In one case you tell a bank teller "Give me my 
> money", in the other you tell a broker "Give me my money." The only 
> difference is that in the second case the amount of money could be less 
> than you originally put in.

I tell the teller (or more likely, the ATM), "Give me $1000," and I get 
$1000 (assuming that I have at least that amount in my account).

I don't tell the broker how much money to give me; I tell him how many 
shares of stock to sell.  Then I wait until he sells the stock, receives 
the money for the sale, takes out his commission, and deposits the money 
into my bank account.  I then tell the teller (or ATM), "Give me my money."

-- 
Ignore this sig.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38969

On 13-01-25 14:42, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> It's only when I sell the stock that its value determines whether I've lost 
> or made money on the transaction.

If your own pension is invested in AAPL, and the plan you have calls for
selling X shares per month, then your monthly revenue has just dropped
significantly.

If you depended on those investments for your life, you would be very
concerned about the drop in price.

If you are a pension plan that is heavily invested in AAPL, you are also
very concerned because that stoc is having very negative yields, and you
need to ask whether to cut your losses now or ride the cycle in the
hopes that Apple's fortunes will improve. (remember, it is the Wall
Street analysts that decide if a company is doing well or not, it isn't
the factual financial reports).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38970

In article <51030f86$0$59748$c3e8da3$66d3cc2f@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> > It's only when I sell the stock that its value determines whether I've 
> > lost or made money on the transaction.
> 
> If your own pension is invested in AAPL, and the plan you have calls for 
> selling X shares per month, then your monthly revenue has just dropped 
> significantly.

Do you know of any pension plans that require selling stock every month?

-- 
Ignore this sig.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38979

On 13-01-25 18:42, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> Do you know of any pension plans that require selling stock every month?

When pension funds invest in non dividend yielding securities (as used
to be the case for Apple), they do so with plans to gradually sell off
to generate cash to pay retired workers. Some of the shares may be
tagged as long term investments, and some short and some medium.

In the case of AAPL, if internal predictions pin AAPL at $300 within 6
months, then they will sell at $450 with plans to buy when it drops near
$300.

So whenever there is talk of downward direction in a stock, a lot of
funds will reduce their exposure  and then continue to talk down on the
stock to cause share values to contiue to drop so they can buy even more
shares later on.

Once they have bought back in, they stop the negative reports and let
the stock rise.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#39001

In article <51035c04$0$63526$c3e8da3$14a0410e@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> > Do you know of any pension plans that require selling stock every 
> > month?
> 
> When pension funds invest in non dividend yielding securities (as used 
> to be the case for Apple),

In other words, your answer is "No."

-- 
Ignore this sig.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38968

On 13-01-25 13:05, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> so long as Apple is making money and issuing dividends, it doesn't matter 
> what the stock price is.

You need to consider whether all that money invested in AAPL would have
had better yields if it had been invested elsewhere.

For instance, if you want a mortgage, the bank looks at your assets.
Those assets are not the dividends but rather the capital value of yoru
shares. That capital value has dropped significatly. So getting a
mortgage when your inestments are in $450 shares is more difficult when
you own the same number of shares valued at $700

So it really isn't just when you sell shares that matters. Your current
net value matters. And that is affected by Wall Street Casino
shenenigans on  stocks such as AAPL.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38922

In article <5101cfe5$0$5913$c3e8da3$50776f34@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> The solution is to counter those analysts estimates
> with realistic ones instead of letting the Wall Street Casino come up
> with their own random numbers.

As if Apple wasn't already doing that... Get real.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38926

On 1/24/13 6:53 PM, in article
jollyroger-44C1A2.16533424012013@news.individual.net, "Jolly Roger"
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> In article <5101cfe5$0$5913$c3e8da3$50776f34@news.astraweb.com>,
>  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> 
>> The solution is to counter those analysts estimates
>> with realistic ones instead of letting the Wall Street Casino come up
>> with their own random numbers.
> 
> As if Apple wasn't already doing that... Get real.

They set a RANGE for Guidance just for such speculation avoidance as opposed
to a number, and the ANALists shit a brick. Go figure...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38941

In article <CD273985.96DB6%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>,
 George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 1/24/13 6:53 PM, in article
> jollyroger-44C1A2.16533424012013@news.individual.net, "Jolly Roger"
> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <5101cfe5$0$5913$c3e8da3$50776f34@news.astraweb.com>,
> >  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> > 
> >> The solution is to counter those analysts estimates
> >> with realistic ones instead of letting the Wall Street Casino come up
> >> with their own random numbers.
> > 
> > As if Apple wasn't already doing that... Get real.
> 
> They set a RANGE for Guidance just for such speculation avoidance as opposed
> to a number, and the ANALists shit a brick. Go figure...

Yep. Idiots.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38923

On 2013.01.24 19:20 , JF Mezei wrote:
> On 13-01-24 18:58, Michelle Steiner wrote:
>
>> The trick is to buy right before the turnaround, and not too soon or too
>> late.
>
> That is the problem. If analysts always overestimate the goals, it means
> that Apple will always miss estimates and its stock will always drop. So
> while the financials keep on improving and the share price SHOULD rise,
> the fact that Apple consistently misses (unrealistic) estimates will
> keep price down in long term.
>
> And that is something Apple needs to worry about because shareholders
> won't be too happy.

Shareholders have choices.

1. Do their own research.  Decide where the price of a stock should be 
over some reasonable amount of time.  Decide to sell, hold or buy 
accordingly.

2. Listen to analysts, trust the analysts or not and sell, hold or buy 
accordingly.

Anything else is BS.  Everything you say is in that category if you need 
clarification.


-- 
"There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties
  were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office."
                                           -Sir John A. Macdonald

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38943

In article <2MKdneY-DdtlRZzMnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> On 2013.01.24 19:20 , JF Mezei wrote:
> > On 13-01-24 18:58, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> >
> >> The trick is to buy right before the turnaround, and not too soon or too
> >> late.
> >
> > That is the problem. If analysts always overestimate the goals, it means
> > that Apple will always miss estimates and its stock will always drop. So
> > while the financials keep on improving and the share price SHOULD rise,
> > the fact that Apple consistently misses (unrealistic) estimates will
> > keep price down in long term.
> >
> > And that is something Apple needs to worry about because shareholders
> > won't be too happy.
> 
> Shareholders have choices.
> 
> 1. Do their own research.  Decide where the price of a stock should be 
> over some reasonable amount of time.  Decide to sell, hold or buy 
> accordingly.
> 
> 2. Listen to analysts, trust the analysts or not and sell, hold or buy 
> accordingly.
> 
> Anything else is BS.  Everything you say is in that category if you need 
> clarification.

I've read lots of articles of late claiming Applešs management is 
somehow hurting AAPL. Yet to me it seems much more the case that the 
arrogance that is actually hurting AAPL is coming from so-called Wall 
Street "analysts".

Apple obviously doesnšt see much need to justify itself to analysts. 
Clearly that pisses some people off (including, no doubt, those very 
same analysts). Now, if the analysts behaved sane and rationally there 
might be a case for listening to them; but instead, they've gone and 
created a hysterical mob that is completely unwilling to see whatšs 
actually happening in the real world and instead pays more attention to 
bullshit.

There is a clear distinction between Apple the company, which continues 
to break record after record with super strong fundamentals, and AAPL 
the stock, which is heavily manipulated by so-called analysts. Those who 
invest strictly to make a quick buck will focus only on the stock price 
and will probably be disappointed, since the stock is subject to the 
idiocy of short-term trades and influenced more by rumour than results. 

Personally, I want to invest in Apple the company, a company that is 
innovating and creating products I love to use. I'm not in this strictly 
for the money. That's just dumb.

-- 
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web