Will Apple stock ever reach $700 again?
The iPhone maker's once high-flying share price has been diving for months. Are its best days behind it?
What went wrong? Apple's profits went flat, fueling fears that its dominance is slipping as it tweaks old gadgets instead of unveiling game-changing new ones.
Even if [Apple] produces a cheaper iPhone, pushes deep into China and wows the world with a smart TV, its shares will not reconquer last year's peak. Competition is now tougher in its core markets. Rivals will not let it disrupt new ones so easily. Apple may dip into its $137 billion cash lake to boost its share price by paying fatter dividends or buying back more stock. That would delight some investors, but others would see it as a tacit admission that the firm's great innovation engine has stalled. Apple won't crumble, but it has peaked. [Economist]
Innovative products that fail don't kill a company but milking the same old stuff forever does. As it stands Apple is operating on the playbook Sony came up with in 1990. It didn't work for them and it won't work for Apple. Until Apple finds the courage to move beyond its legacy the stock is dead money, at best. Shares will bounce and drop and gyrate, but long-term investors are better off elsewhere. [Yahoo]
Apple's price-to-earnings ratio, a shorthand measure of a stock's value, has dropped to 10.5, far below the average of 15 for the broad Standard & Poor's 500 index. In other words, Apple stock is selling at a "steep discount," Tangel says. Investors might actually want to buy now, before Apple's stock starts going back up.
This article easily qualifies as one of the dumbest ever posted by this site. It makes one really wonder about the competency or the objectives of the editors monitoring these posts.
There isn't one scintilla of evidence to question the future growth potential of this incredibly strong company. Their past performance was not based on sheer luck or the efforts of a single person. The team is still intact with the same visionary and innovative talent to continue and prosper. Any investor paying any heed to this article is either a fool or neophyte. I can recall that not too long ago the same garbage was written on IBM.
The December quarter, Apple's first quarter of FY2013, was 13 weeks in length versus 14 weeks in the prior-year period. On a weekly basis, Apple's revenue was $4.2 billion in the recent December quarter versus $3.3 billion in the prior-year period. On an equal week basis, revenue in the quarter rose 26.7%
Q1 2013: 13 Weeks
Q1 2012: 14 weeks
Using simple math and calculating Rev and EPS on a per week basis, let’s say the reporting periods matched @ 14 weeks:
Estimated Q1 2013: 14 Weeks
Yeah, I would say they exceeded not only their own expectations, but also analysts’ expectations. That's a blowout quarter! Once all the traders have purchased their AAPL stock at these bargain prices, this will be the headline to push it back up. What are bunch of fear-driving quacks!
Copyright © 2013 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by Morningstar Inc.
With the universe of this category in its seasonal sweet spot, these picks have tailwinds propelling them into the new year.
VIDEO ON MSN MONEY
Top Stocks provides analysis about the most noteworthy stocks in the market each day, combining some of the best content from around the MSN Money site and the rest of the Web.
Contributors include professional investors and journalists affiliated with MSN Money.
Follow us on Twitter @topstocksmsn.