AAPL is Overpriced!

[bwolinsky]

Quote from Visaria:

When u exiting? I bot my Apple at $490 ish after Icahn's tweet. Are u hanging on for $700+?

I would look at selling AAPL above a 20+ PE.

Quote from FreakofNature:

Did you go on record anywhere with this position or you one of those after-the-fact geniuses that so frequently "grace" us with their superpowers.

The trade 120-165 is so long ago and the trade above $300 is somewhere around my posts...from years ago, so I don't need to bother looking for them.

It's been in my portfolio for my clients for a long time...

Look, Apples a $500 billion stock with a $150 billion buyback and profits won't ever fall, so the reduced float count will drive earnings at least 30% without Apple having to ever acquire any more customers.

It's simple math. It all adds up to billions and how many billions I'll take my chances waiting on the PE to tell me. Until then, this stock's sitting watching these buybacks spruce up the stock price, reducing outstanding share count, and all around still paying a yield that's more than gravy for most bonds. It's a win win all around and I won't ever lose on it.

 

[bwolinsky]

PS: I just booked a 175.25 point profit in NASDAQ 100 NQ Futures at 3495 from 3319.75 in my QuantMaster program.

Thank you, Bill Schamp!

 

[drownpruf]

Quote from bwolinsky:

I would look at selling AAPL above a 20+ PE.



The trade 120-165 is so long ago and the trade above $300 is somewhere around my posts...from years ago, so I don't need to bother looking for them.

It's been in my portfolio for my clients for a long time...

Look, Apples a $500 billion stock with a $150 billion buyback and profits won't ever fall, so the reduced float count will drive earnings at least 30% without Apple having to ever acquire any more customers.

It's simple math. It all adds up to billions and how many billions I'll take my chances waiting on the PE to tell me. Until then, this stock's sitting watching these buybacks spruce up the stock price, reducing outstanding share count, and all around still paying a yield that's more than gravy for most bonds. It's a win win all around and I won't ever lose on it.

Icahn mentioned a 150B buyback... that's not remotely happening.

 

[bwolinsky]

Quote from drownpruf:

Icahn mentioned a 150B buyback... that's not remotely happening.

Even if they don't do it the reduced float count at $44 billion will increase EPS 20%.

 

[drownpruf]

Quote from bwolinsky:

Even if they don't do it the reduced float count at $44 billion will increase EPS 20%.

Right, which is about as relevant as a stock split. It's simply a share speculation. Smart move only if it's above their VWAP.

 

[Humpy]

Q. If a person with the top qualities such as Steve Jobs were to apply for a top post in Apple would he/she get accepted ?

A. Probably not, as people only rarely employ other people who are better than themselves. Well would you ?

So the Microsofts etc. can only expect worse CEOs not better. That is why the shareholders should do the picking not a small committee of non exec directors who are open to bribery etc.

 

[drownpruf]

Quote from Humpy:

Q. If a person with the top qualities such as Steve Jobs were to apply for a top post in Apple would he/she get accepted ?

A. Probably not, as people only rarely employ other people who are better than themselves. Well would you ?

So the Microsofts etc. can only expect worse CEOs not better. That is why the shareholders should do the picking not a small committee of non exec directors who are open to bribery etc.

Job's talents are not applicable to Dilbert positions. The idea that Job's would be "hired" is proof that the question is pointless. His value was macro, not micro. Pixar, NeXT, etc.

 

[Humpy]

Quote from drownpruf:

Job's talents are not applicable to Dilbert positions. The idea that Job's would be "hired" is proof that the question is pointless. His value was macro, not micro. Pixar, NeXT, etc.

You got it round the wrong way. Jobs may not be hired and thus be a big loss to the company.

 

[drownpruf]

Quote from Humpy:

You got it round the wrong way. Jobs may not be hired and thus be a big loss to the company.

Right, and the HR person is clairvoyant. wtf is the point of these mindless time-travel hypotheticals? Determinism. Steve Jobs was a corporate and cultural phenomenon because he became Steve Jobs. Ya, he dropped out of Reed College... what a resume draw.

Maybe XYZ corp should take a write off because they didn't hire John Doe after his third interview, but who eventually became CEO of ABC which resulted in $100B in mcap gains in x-years. Pointless. Bye.

 

[bwolinsky]

Quote from drownpruf:

Right, which is about as relevant as a stock split. It's simply a share speculation. Smart move only if it's above their VWAP.

Buy backs do impact balance sheets and reducing float with what's likely even higher profits increases eps. It's not the same as a split.