This is a potential buying opportunity if it stays down there tomorrow. The company is healthy long-term.
Sorry but markets tend to always overvalue certain things in a company. Even if Apple continues to perform reasonably well, investors might still be reluctant to invest. Again, the recession is going to really hit hard niche markets like Apple. Clearly it will no longer remain the leader of the tech sector. Apple is already at a crossroads where growth is slowing and its hard to imagine the stock going up to $200 levels again. Growth is just not there, Ipod sales are flattening and people have less discreditionary spending for tech gadgets these days.
This is more of whether or not you're buying it for a trade or if you're buying it as an investment. If it's an investment, you can't say it went from $80-something to $79 (now) and say it sucks. Long term investors aren't going to care about that kind of drop. Hell, if you dollar cost average in, you can cut that loss down percentage-wise. For a short-term trade, this may have been good for afterhours today - it's already up around $3-$4 i think off it's lows when it opened for trading again.
No they weren't. Or they might have been healthy, but they weren't very large. They had a tiny niche product with a tiny fraction of the market. Now they are the dominant player in the portable music industry as well as the digital music industry. They are a growing share of the smartphone industry and a growing (albeit slowly) share of the computer industry. My guess is within 2 weeks, the stock is trading where it was before this news came out.
Oh good point - my bad. I was thinking the time period, but he was probably referring to price. I was thinking he was referring to the company being healthy in the 1980's but not a good stock at the time. In the other case, I agree - I think the stock is well-valued in the $80-range too. But it's going to be stuck in that $85-$100 trading range with the market. I think a price in the $70's is an opportunity, though. It's an over-reaction to news that we kind of already knew - that Steve Jobs had health issues.
I meant the 1980's. I mean apple was a pretty big deal then. They started becoming irrelevant when jobs left. Maybe they weren't as big, but tech wasn't as big back then either.
Certainly true - but I think their stage of life as a company was very different then. A smaller, startup type company relies on the talent of a few innovators a whole lot. Apple's no longer that type of company. They have $30 billion in cash, no debt. They dominate multiple market segments, etc. They are much more established and have a lot more talent all throughout the company than they did back then. I think right now, Jobs is more of an icon than anything else. Back then, he was the primary innovative mind behind a much smaller company.
thank Tim Tebow they lied the last time. i sold about 40% of what i had left in AAPL when it went up to $96 off the hormonal imbalance news. now i just have about 1/3 of my peak position in AAPL so this news hurts, but not as bad as it could have.
It's tempting. But apparently, institutional investors aren't allowed to hold stocks valued at under $5 or something like that. So if Citi stays down here for (I don't know how long), institutional investors may have to all start liquidating their Citi holdings.
