Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on Nov 2, 2016 2:18:50 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by zebrum on Nov 2, 2016 6:09:17 GMT -8
Phil Schiller: New MacBook Pro has more orders from Apple than any other pro model ever dlvr.it/MZdClt #AppleInsider $AAPL Funny because I don't know a single person that has ordered one, even those on several year-old models.
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on Nov 2, 2016 6:49:32 GMT -8
Phil Schiller: New MacBook Pro has more orders from Apple than any other pro model ever dlvr.it/MZdClt #AppleInsider $AAPL Funny because I don't know a single person that has ordered one, even those on several year-old models. "Our online store has had more orders for the new MacBook Pro than any other pro notebook before" - Phil Schiller, Apple SVP 1) PERHAPS in the past, new MacBook Pros were available in stores on the day they were announced.... 2) the base is larger than it has been in the past. SO, it is logical to say orders have increased.
|
|
crispin
Member
KBJ for the win. AAPL long and strong since 2000
Posts: 311
|
Post by crispin on Nov 2, 2016 6:49:46 GMT -8
Phil Schiller: New MacBook Pro has more orders from Apple than any other pro model ever dlvr.it/MZdClt #AppleInsider $AAPL Funny because I don't know a single person that has ordered one, even those on several year-old models. I'm willing to bet your sample size is a bit smaller than Schiller's.
|
|
|
Post by tuffett on Nov 2, 2016 7:33:05 GMT -8
.
Have to be very careful with the things Apple says of late. They almost always make things sound better than they really are, and then we end up disappointed at earnings.
More than any other Pro notebook before. This is for two reasons: 1) Only the Pro line got updated and it now has an expanded lineup 2) No more MacBook Air, so some MBA upgraders are going for a "Pro"
It's entirely possible, if not probable, that Schiller is telling the truth but overall Mac notebook sales are significantly less than they used to be.
|
|
|
Post by joel90069 on Nov 2, 2016 9:43:11 GMT -8
The only reason AAPL is green today, is it goes ex- dividend tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by Apple II+ on Nov 2, 2016 9:43:49 GMT -8
Does anyone here think the stock would be at $113 if Apple were paying a quarterly $1.25 dividend? It's well within their capabilities. Of course it would be higher, but by how much? And if they could pressure the stock price higher with bigger dividend increases, why have they chosen smaller increases? What if the answer is that they don't want the stock price to go up more quickly than it has, because shareholder returns have been high enough?
|
|
|
Post by david on Nov 2, 2016 9:44:00 GMT -8
. Have to be very careful with the things Apple says of late. They almost always make things sound better than they really are, and then we end up disappointed at earnings. More than any other Pro notebook before. This is for two reasons: 1) Only the Pro line got updated and it now has an expanded lineup 2) No more MacBook Air, so some MBA upgraders are going for a "Pro" It's entirely possible, if not probable, that Schiller is telling the truth but overall Mac notebook sales are significantly less than they used to be. Or possibly Apple has "more orders for the new MacBook Pro than any other pro notebook before." Nah, Apple always lies. ... Oh wait, this isn't BGR.
|
|
|
Post by dreamRaj on Nov 2, 2016 9:44:44 GMT -8
Don't even know if "BTFD" would be an appropriate comment if we go below 110.
|
|
|
Post by tuffett on Nov 2, 2016 9:56:59 GMT -8
. Have to be very careful with the things Apple says of late. They almost always make things sound better than they really are, and then we end up disappointed at earnings. More than any other Pro notebook before. This is for two reasons: 1) Only the Pro line got updated and it now has an expanded lineup 2) No more MacBook Air, so some MBA upgraders are going for a "Pro" It's entirely possible, if not probable, that Schiller is telling the truth but overall Mac notebook sales are significantly less than they used to be. Or possibly Apple has "more orders for the new MacBook Pro than any other pro notebook before." Nah, Apple always lies. ... Oh wait, this isn't BGR. I didn't say it's a lie, but it's classic Apple misdirection. It's not actually that impressive when you think about it.
|
|
|
Post by tuffett on Nov 2, 2016 10:01:21 GMT -8
Does anyone here think the stock would be at $113 if Apple were paying a quarterly $1.25 dividend? It's well within their capabilities. Of course it would be higher, but by how much? And if they could pressure the stock price higher with bigger dividend increases, why have they chosen smaller increases? What if the answer is that they don't want the stock price to go up more quickly than it has, because shareholder returns have been high enough? Given management's belief that the stock is undervalued, and the stock has underperformed its index as well as most of its major competitors on a 5-year chart (a long term holding to most), I don't think investors would be too happy to hear that Apple knows how to boost the stock (without compromising the business) and won't do it. I'm not suggesting anything crazy, just going from about a 25% payout ratio to about 50%. It won't even touch the cash balance. As for how much higher the stock would be, nobody knows, but I'd guess easily above the current all-time highs. I for one would certainly be more interested to hold if my AAPL paycheque were doubled.
|
|
|
Post by david on Nov 2, 2016 10:11:05 GMT -8
I didn't say it's a lie, but it's classic Apple misdirection. It's not actually that impressive when you think about it. "Classic misdirection"? Can you give us an example? or two?
|
|
|
Post by mrentropy on Nov 2, 2016 10:16:21 GMT -8
Does anyone here think the stock would be at $113 if Apple were paying a quarterly $1.25 dividend? It's well within their capabilities. Of course it would be higher, but by how much? And if they could pressure the stock price higher with bigger dividend increases, why have they chosen smaller increases? What if the answer is that they don't want the stock price to go up more quickly than it has, because shareholder returns have been high enough? Personally I'm not a fan of one time dividends. I question dividend returns in general because (as we are witnessing today), the stock ramps prior to ex-dividend and then people sell it after. It just encourages trading around dividend dates, not holding the stock. That being said, I'm grateful for the dividend, I have been re-investing it. I believe I am turning it off this time though, like others, I am looking to diversify.
|
|
|
Post by tuffett on Nov 2, 2016 10:43:14 GMT -8
I didn't say it's a lie, but it's classic Apple misdirection. It's not actually that impressive when you think about it. "Classic misdirection"? Can you give us an example? or two? 1) Making all sorts of excuses for drop in iPad sales for several quarters without realizing that demand is not coming back to prior levels 2) Implying a record year for iPhone 6s by quoting low upgrade percentage of installed base, bragging about record quarter despite huge channel stuff in order to meet guidance. 3) Focusing on services growth to distract from iPhone weakness
|
|
|
Post by david on Nov 2, 2016 10:58:29 GMT -8
1) Making all sorts of excuses for drop in iPad sales for several quarters without realizing that demand is not coming back to prior levels 2) Implying a record year for iPhone 6s by quoting low upgrade percentage of installed base, bragging about record quarter despite huge channel stuff in order to meet guidance. 3) Focusing on services growth to distract from iPhone weakness Misdirection? 1. ... "without realizing" ... 2. ... "Record year". Second only to the iPhone 6 cycle. Did they misdirect when they stated the channel stuff at earnings? 3. ... "focusing on" "Misdirection" implies deliberately misleading. Can you give me an example or two?
|
|
|
Post by tuffett on Nov 2, 2016 11:09:55 GMT -8
1) Making all sorts of excuses for drop in iPad sales for several quarters without realizing that demand is not coming back to prior levels 2) Implying a record year for iPhone 6s by quoting low upgrade percentage of installed base, bragging about record quarter despite huge channel stuff in order to meet guidance. 3) Focusing on services growth to distract from iPhone weakness Misdirection? 1. ... "without realizing" ... 2. ... "Record year". Second only to the iPhone 6 cycle. Did they misdirect when they stated the channel stuff at earnings? 3. ... "focusing on" "Misdirection" implies deliberately misleading. Can you give me an example or two? I just did, if you don't agree that's fine.
|
|
|
Post by david on Nov 2, 2016 11:14:57 GMT -8
I just did, if you don't agree that's fine. I just refuted them. QED.
|
|
|
Post by northstar on Nov 2, 2016 11:24:18 GMT -8
Ahmen
|
|
|
Post by tuffett on Nov 2, 2016 11:26:53 GMT -8
I just did, if you don't agree that's fine. I just refuted them. QED. It's hard to refute opinion. I've certainly felt misled on more than one occasion. Either it's intentional or Apple has lost the ability to forecast accurately. I believe it's a mix of the two. End result is the same - don't take management's word as gospel, and by saying what they're saying, think about what they are also not saying. Eg. Orders for pro models are at an all-time high might also at the same time mean that orders for non-pro models are at multi-year lows given the rest of the lineup (older MacBook, ancient MacBook Air). At the end of the day it's the total revenue and profit that count, and Schiller's statement gives little insight about what those numbers might be.
|
|
|
Post by david on Nov 2, 2016 11:48:26 GMT -8
It's hard to refute opinion. I've certainly felt misled on more than one occasion. Either it's intentional or Apple has lost the ability to forecast accurately. I believe it's a mix of the two. End result is the same - don't take management's word as gospel, and by saying what they're saying, think about what they are also not saying. Eg. Orders for pro models are at an all-time high might also at the same time mean that orders for non-pro models are at multi-year lows given the rest of the lineup (older MacBook, ancient MacBook Air). At the end of the day it's the total revenue and profit that count, and Schiller's statement gives little insight about what those numbers might be. If orders for pro models are at an all-time high then orders for non-pro models are almost certainly at multi-year lows. That's how it works. So, I'm going to go with: "b. Schiller's statement gives insight about what those numbers might be." Final answer.
|
|
|
Post by Apple II+ on Nov 2, 2016 13:26:37 GMT -8
Of course it would be higher, but by how much? And if they could pressure the stock price higher with bigger dividend increases, why have they chosen smaller increases? What if the answer is that they don't want the stock price to go up more quickly than it has, because shareholder returns have been high enough? I don't think investors would be too happy to hear that Apple knows how to boost the stock (without compromising the business) and won't do it. Won't do it and haven't pulled the trigger yet are two different stories. Investors should already know that Apple knows how to boost the stock. It's no secret, right? After all, we agree that it's obvious that a much higher dividend would make the stock go up. Perhaps that's one reason Apple remains so under-priced by the market. Apple may finally have good reason for a bigger dividend increase.
|
|
|
Post by rickag on Nov 2, 2016 14:37:29 GMT -8
Does anyone here think the stock would be at $113 if Apple were paying a quarterly $1.25 dividend? It's well within their capabilities. Of course it would be higher, but by how much? And if they could pressure the stock price higher with bigger dividend increases, why have they chosen smaller increases? What if the answer is that they don't want the stock price to go up more quickly than it has, because shareholder returns have been high enough? $5/year. My cost basis is ~ $0.67/share. ~746% return per year, I can only dream.
|
|
Since84
Moderator
To infinity and beyond!
Posts: 3,933
|
Post by Since84 on Nov 2, 2016 14:51:10 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by mrentropy on Nov 2, 2016 17:07:18 GMT -8
Wow, Facebook took a gut punch in the AH. Everything else in the tech space in down in sympathy. Which is odd in Apple's case because the reason for FB's plunge is poor outlook. Apple gave a very good outlook. Oh well, knee jerk reactions. Perhaps we climb back above the 50DMA tomorrow.
|
|