There used to be a running joke – and perhaps one with more than a little truth to it – that one of the reasons the late Steve Jobs didn't split Apple's fast-rising stock was that he wanted to someday see it pass Google in per-share price. Had Apple's co-founder lived exactly six months longer, he would have seen that day come …
How will he even know unless he has an iPhone* in his coffin?
* Assuming it was set correctly in his cold, dead hands.
Are you drunk?
So we're really getting excited about market cap are we? Okay...
What's the world coming to?
Re: Market Cap
In case you don't get it market cap is basically another name for trader-stupidity-index.
Apple's sock price beats Google. Great, didn't they say they were going to buy back loads of shares. Watch what happens if Google does the same thing.
P/E ratio is the closest thing you get to a stupidity index. This is the ratio of stock price to profits earned. The normal range for this is 10-20. Above that tends to indicate overpriced stock (or optimistic buyers), below that indicates underpriced stock (or pessimistic buyers).
Guess what, Google's current P/E is 20.2, Apple's is 18. Who are the bigger idiots?
Re: Wrong index
I think both are inflated, to be honest. However I suspect Google's might be broader-based, I can't help but feel an ill wind/change in fashion could do Apple a lot more damage than Google
Re: Wrong index
"Who are the bigger idiots?"
Me. I bought Apple at about $25 and, when it got to $70, thought "There's got to be a market correction coming" so I sold it. The market corrected UPWARD.
Ah well, I made enough to pay down a lot of my mortgage.
Re: Wrong index
Right there with you. I sold around 220 before the ipad came out, because I thought to my self "who on earth would buy such an expensive, useless gadget". Well, now I know the answer: pretty much everyone.
Lets bet on a stock price!
Isn't it comforting to know that the idiots that manage our pensions don't have anything else to do with our cash other than to decide to keep throwing it into Google and Apple stock that their buddies are selling them at a profit?
There was a time when BRK.B was stuck at $32,767.5 and wouldn't go up anymore for some "unknown" reason. At least money sent there is invested in companies and not just used to bet that a stock price will go up.
Re: Lets bet on a stock price!
"stuck at 32,767.5"
Maybe they were only using a signed 16-bit integer to hold the dollar value, and the thought of it dropping to -32,768 in after-hours trading would be too horrifying to contemplate :)
(Joke alert, lest this descends into a discussion about BCD...)
A bit daft...
The number of shares is perfectly arbitrary. They can not only split them to drop the per share value, they can also do a N-for-1 stock whatchamacallit to multiply the per share price up.
Aside from impressing the peasants and perhaps keeping out the riffraff, the per share price is a bit meaningless. It's daft to think it means anything unless and until it's multiplied by the number of shares.
They could just have one bigass $600B share, and then they could perhaps sell shares of the bigass share.
Only one thing
The high price of the stock certainly keeps most if not all of the high frequency traders out of the stock so I'll give them that. Granted, averaging 20M shares a day is a lot higher than GOOG at about 2.5M but it seems pretty low compared to real h.f. targets like BAC which is averaging close to 300M daily trades. I'm thinking the reason for the stock buyback is exactly to drive up the price so they can split and maintain a high price afterward to keep h.f. out of the game.
Re: Only one thing
Not many people are going to buy and sell one share. They'd typically buy and sell groups of share. A "high" share price is a bit like a football (soccar) match in that it lacks the finely divided score resolution of a basketball game. But that matters not a bit.
The "volume" (number of shares traded) is equally meaningless unless and until it's multiplied by the value of the shares, thus calculating the actual "volume" in dollars.
Oh for crying out loud
It was $500 only recently and AGAIN I decided I'd missed the boat on investing.
I could buy a single Apple share and it would pay for a new iPad in a fortnight, I want to get on the gravy train but surely this time it's maxed out. Right? Right?!
Not an Economist (or particularly good at maths), but...
Could you imagine if Google, Apple & Microsoft got together? they'd destroy Hollywood, that would make me happy, and no, I'm not drunk, just bored and hating on Hollywood - also the fandroids and Appletards would all have to kiss and makeup.
iGooSoft running the world, yo... and Happy Easter all.
Oh that dream sounds nice, but it wouldn't really work like that given that Jobs was for all the ugly things we hate Hollywood for (inane copyright extensions, DRM, "IP protection", stupid patents) so it would be more like the Rise of the Empire.
Of course, Jobs is no more, Cook might just stray away from that nonsense. Time will tell..
Jobs hated copy protection. HE fought to get rid of it. The content OWNERS insisted on it.
the fact it tied people into his platform in a key marketing moment was nothing to do with it then..
A bit presumptuous?
Cook, is buying stock back, paying dividends, defending the workers in china....
"Somewhere, Steve Jobs is smiling"
Keep your religious clap-trap to yourself, El Reg.
Stocks can go down as fast as they go up.
Apple have form.
They lost over 70% in one evening in September 2000, if I remember correctly. Yes, I did have options, yes I was bitter (furious would be more like it, as said options were compensation for losing a very good holiday package), and no, I still wouldn't work for them again.
- 'Windows 9' LEAK: Microsoft's playing catchup with Linux
- Review A SCORCHIO fatboy SSD: Samsung SSD850 PRO 3D V-NAND
- Was Earth once covered in HELLFIRE? No – more like a wet Sunday night in Iceland
- Breaking Fad 4K-ing excellent TV is on its way ... in its own sweet time, natch
- Every billionaire needs a PANZER TANK, right? STOP THERE, Paul Allen