- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Covered calls on AAPL?
Posted on 5/3/16 at 7:59 pm to dabigfella
Posted on 5/3/16 at 7:59 pm to dabigfella
I could say a lot here, but I'll just respond to the last bit...
Over the decades, how many people said the same thing (minus market cap) about how many other companies, and where are these companies now? How about US Steel (X)? Kodak (EKDKQ for the old stock, which isn't traded anymore)? Cisco (CSCO)?
Tell that to the US Repatriation Tax rate.
AAPL isn't going to continue growing at the same rate as in the past due to the law of large numbers if nothing else. To reinforce this point, consider that for AAPL to become a $5 trillion company in 30 years (to be conservative based on the timespan you suggested in the first quote) requires an annual growth rate of around 7.25%, which is faster than annual US GDP growth for any year in more than a decade. If we instead assume it takes 20 years to acquire a $5 trillion market cap, then the stock annual growth rate would be 11%. They're big, and it's hard to keep growing when you're that large - just ask Warren Buffett.
Not trying to be mean or say that AAPL can't be a good investment. It's just that your post sounds like something you'd hear from a Cisco investor in the 90's.
quote:
FWIW I stlil think apple is worth $5 trillion or more in 20-30 years yes still 10x or more from here as ridiculous as it sounds. This thing is nowhere near topping out, whatever they want to dominate they can and will.
Over the decades, how many people said the same thing (minus market cap) about how many other companies, and where are these companies now? How about US Steel (X)? Kodak (EKDKQ for the old stock, which isn't traded anymore)? Cisco (CSCO)?
quote:
Their cash pile is unstoppable
Tell that to the US Repatriation Tax rate.
quote:See above, and think of all the big company/stock names over the years that you've heard the same exact thing but didn't pan out.
just relax, its the best name youll ever own, your ancestors a few generations away will thank you for holding on.
AAPL isn't going to continue growing at the same rate as in the past due to the law of large numbers if nothing else. To reinforce this point, consider that for AAPL to become a $5 trillion company in 30 years (to be conservative based on the timespan you suggested in the first quote) requires an annual growth rate of around 7.25%, which is faster than annual US GDP growth for any year in more than a decade. If we instead assume it takes 20 years to acquire a $5 trillion market cap, then the stock annual growth rate would be 11%. They're big, and it's hard to keep growing when you're that large - just ask Warren Buffett.
Not trying to be mean or say that AAPL can't be a good investment. It's just that your post sounds like something you'd hear from a Cisco investor in the 90's.
1
Posted on 5/3/16 at 8:04 pm to Omada
Ok but Cisco,Kodak all that stuff you mentioned was nowhere near the level of apple. Apple is engrained in our lives beyond belief. Their ecosystem ropes you in and you're entrenched forever. What is apples retention rate???? Their computers are the best in the world hands down and whats the retention rate on that??? Whats apples market penetration on a global scale? Is their room to grow??? Apple hasn't even sniffed the surface of global penetration of phones or computers yet its the second biggest company on earth and they have a mountain of cash that neither kodak nor cisco ever dreamed of having. I had a samsung note 3 for literally 3-4 days and I returned it and got an iphone a few years ago, that was the last time I cheat on apple with samsung.
To compare those titans from the past to the fortress that is apple, and yes fortress bc that balance sheet doesn't lie is just silly. We're entering a technological golden age with robots, cars, etc and apple has all the cash on earth to dominate in whatever way they seem fit. No offense but LOL at kodak references, cmon man thats such a cliche answer.
If you dont believe me just go back and do some homework, Cisco had a whopping $19B in cash in 2000......this is old, but here's a link from 2012
LINK
To compare those titans from the past to the fortress that is apple, and yes fortress bc that balance sheet doesn't lie is just silly. We're entering a technological golden age with robots, cars, etc and apple has all the cash on earth to dominate in whatever way they seem fit. No offense but LOL at kodak references, cmon man thats such a cliche answer.
If you dont believe me just go back and do some homework, Cisco had a whopping $19B in cash in 2000......this is old, but here's a link from 2012
LINK
quote:
It is immediately apparent that "CSCO 2000" and "AAPL 2012" are very, very different companies - roughly an order of magnitude apart in size. AAPL has roughly 8 times the sales volume, 15 times the net income and 6 times the balance sheet cash of the old CSCO. In fact, AAPL could use its cash to buy the old CSCO for almost 50 times earnings. While sentiment can, in the short term, do almost anything to a stock's price, in the intermediate and long run, AAPL's cash flow and balance sheet cash will enable it to buy back shares, pay dividends and take other actions to cushion short-term drops in share price. CSCO in 2000 was in no such position. For example, AAPL's cash hoard is equivalent more than 20% of its market cap; CSCO's cash was less than 4% of its market cap.
This post was edited on 5/3/16 at 8:25 pm
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News