3 ms·

But not a growing market. You don't get a 27.27 P/E ratio by selling phones to the same fraction of the general population. Indeed, that's "the same as many o

by ajross 3y ago

But not a growing market. You don't get a 27.27 P/E ratio by selling phones to the same fraction of the general population. Indeed, that's "the same as many other consumer goods", so go check valuations of Nestle or Proctor & Gamble or whatever. The point is that an Apple stock priced at a level commensurate with a static market would be a catastrophic loss of shareholder value.

carlosjobim 3y ago
Well of course nothing can grow forever. But Apple can still keep making profits every year and pay dividends. Why should I or anybody else care any more than that for the shareholders? Boo-hoo?
gen220 3y ago
I'd recommend looking at P/S, Gross Margin and Operating Margins. They're more robust measurement tools than P/E and Net Margin, because – unlike Net Income (Earnings) – Revenue, Cost of Revenue and Operating Expenses are not accounting magic. Today, Apple trades at 6.94 Price/TTM Sales per Share. P&G trades at 4.7. Apple's TTM Gross Margin and TTM Operating Margins are 45% and 30.7%. P&G's are 50% and 22%. Apple's TTM Operating Margin is 1.395x of P&G's, and their P/S is 1.476x of P&G. This is the explanatory variable for the higher P/S – higher operating efficiency. Which makes sense because their blend of revenue includes services and insurance, not just high-margin physical products. IDK the point you're trying to make, because these companies have essentially the same multiples today. Apple's market cap is higher because their TTM revenue is $386B and P&G's is $84B. But their key ratios are not so far apart. I wrote all this up to show you the perils of P/E comparisons... before realizing that Apple and P&G actually have essentially identical P/E valuations (~26-27). In this instance, there's not a lot of peril, because they're both in a similar phase of corporate life: operating as late-stage growth companies surfing the wave separating innovation from profit-maximization for as long as they can – where generating income is important (so net income is not hovering around zero) but not the end-all/be-all (there're still expectations of YoY revenue growth). Besides, Apple's customer and revenue composition is also not at all static, and you'd understand this if you read their earnings reports. They are not a dam that's waiting to burst, in spite of some people willing them to be. On the contrary, they've never been stickier or more mass-market than they are today.

by ajross 3y ago

carlosjobim 3y ago

Well of course nothing can grow forever. But Apple can still keep making profits every year and pay dividends. Why should I or anybody else care any more than that for the shareholders? Boo-hoo?

gen220 3y ago

I'd recommend looking at P/S, Gross Margin and Operating Margins. They're more robust measurement tools than P/E and Net Margin, because – unlike Net Income (Earnings) – Revenue, Cost of Revenue and Operating Expenses are not accounting magic. Today, Apple trades at 6.94 Price/TTM Sales per Share. P&G trades at 4.7. Apple's TTM Gross Margin and TTM Operating Margins are 45% and 30.7%. P&G's are 50% and 22%. Apple's TTM Operating Margin is 1.395x of P&G's, and their P/S is 1.476x of P&G. This is the explanatory variable for the higher P/S – higher operating efficiency. Which makes sense because their blend of revenue includes services and insurance, not just high-margin physical products. IDK the point you're trying to make, because these companies have essentially the same multiples today. Apple's market cap is higher because their TTM revenue is $386B and P&G's is $84B. But their key ratios are not so far apart. I wrote all this up to show you the perils of P/E comparisons... before realizing that Apple and P&G actually have essentially identical P/E valuations (~26-27). In this instance, there's not a lot of peril, because they're both in a similar phase of corporate life: operating as late-stage growth companies surfing the wave separating innovation from profit-maximization for as long as they can – where generating income is important (so net income is not hovering around zero) but not the end-all/be-all (there're still expectations of YoY revenue growth). Besides, Apple's customer and revenue composition is also not at all static, and you'd understand this if you read their earnings reports. They are not a dam that's waiting to burst, in spite of some people willing them to be. On the contrary, they've never been stickier or more mass-market than they are today.