4 ms·
First: the market is actually not disappointed. If that were the case, the stock would not be up substantially by real people spending money to buy the stock on
by runako 15y ago
First: the market is actually not disappointed. If that were the case, the stock would not be up substantially by real people spending money to buy the stock on the basis of this news. The market likes this news, the (clueless) writers at media outlets were disappointed.
Your analogy also misses on a number of levels. But to make it crystal clear, I'll correct it. Today's results are like buying an economy car in a price band where similarly priced cars can reach 60 MPH and finding out that yours goes 800 MPH and being disappointed. For a share of AAPL is priced more like a Kia than a Ferrari relative to its growth.
To clarify: the stock is not expensive by any classical valuation metric. The stock is trading at a multiple of < 16, which is lower than companies in much slower-growing businesses. For example: McDonald's (18), Procter & Gamble (20), Coke (20). In fact, the Dow Jones index of utility stocks trades at a higher earnings multiple. And now there's a dividend in case 100% EPS growth isn't enough for an investor. So unless your idea of an expensive high-flying stock is a stodgy utility, AAPL is absolutely not priced for wild growth and profitability.
- huxley 15y agoAmazon has been trading at 137.4 P/E ratio. Now there is a stock priced for wild growth and profitability, Apple is a cheap stock in comparison.
- dkokelley 15y agoI suppose I should have clarified. I didn't pay attention to any of the AAPL news or reportings. I was trying to describe how something objectively 'good' by normal standards could be construed as 'disappointing' to the market. I didn't mean to imply this was the case with AAPL, but I suppose the context of my post makes my intention ambiguous.