Down goes the Dow

Hey Racket, have you seen this ?

https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/l1u036/wsb_gets_emotional_on_mad_money/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb

---

la gente esta muy loca wrote:

---

seattle prattle wrote:

---

agip wrote:

---

seattle prattle wrote:
Igy, if one had invested $10 K in apple on the day you mentioned, March 2000, how much would it be worth today?
A mere $10K would be worth almost $1,389,000.
Does that give you pause about high valuations and how much you might weight you might give to them in this day and age?

---

unfair to look at just one stock
and anyway, apple was a value stock back then, often considered likely to go out of business, so it's actually partly an argument for Igy's point of view - that buying cheap is how to do this best.

---

No, Apple was not a value stock. Are you kidding? It was among the poster child of the internet/tech stocks that were considered grossly over valued. The same stuff was spouted then about growth stocks of this ilk.
Maybe before your time, but i remember it well.
Apple was considered one of the bubble stocks.
Remember, it IPO'd twenty years earlier.

---

Seattle prattle is right. AAPL was a 10 bagger from Dec 1998 to Mar 2000, it then proceeded to drop 80% by the end of the year.

---

personal story on apple...when I was at a deep value hedge fund in the mid 00's we owned apple...we paid around $10 and were trying to get a double. I think we sold at $12 after it seemed to want to go out of business.
Split adjusted that was around $2, probably. Ouch.

---

la gente esta muy loca wrote:
Hey Racket, have you seen this ?

https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/l1u036/wsb_gets_emotional_on_mad_money/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb

---

---

agip wrote:

---

la gente esta muy loca wrote:

---

seattle prattle wrote:

---

agip wrote:

---

seattle prattle wrote:
Igy, if one had invested $10 K in apple on the day you mentioned, March 2000, how much would it be worth today?
A mere $10K would be worth almost $1,389,000.
Does that give you pause about high valuations and how much you might weight you might give to them in this day and age?

---

unfair to look at just one stock
and anyway, apple was a value stock back then, often considered likely to go out of business, so it's actually partly an argument for Igy's point of view - that buying cheap is how to do this best.

---

No, Apple was not a value stock. Are you kidding? It was among the poster child of the internet/tech stocks that were considered grossly over valued. The same stuff was spouted then about growth stocks of this ilk.
Maybe before your time, but i remember it well.
Apple was considered one of the bubble stocks.
Remember, it IPO'd twenty years earlier.

---

Seattle prattle is right. AAPL was a 10 bagger from Dec 1998 to Mar 2000, it then proceeded to drop 80% by the end of the year.

---

I'm talking whether apple had a low valuation, not its performance in the 90s.
have to define times to talk about apple's valuation.
Through most of the 90s its PE was around 15, because Apple was considered a hardware company that would eventually disappear. It was never really a high-PE dot com stock.
The Ipod didn't come out until 2003 - until then it was a niche computer maker.
here's a chart...you can see Apple's PE was in the teens most of the time, as late as 2012. Scroll down a bit to see it.

https://www.thefrugalprof.com/apple-the-valuation-debate/

---

---

la gente esta muy loca wrote:

---

agip wrote:

---

la gente esta muy loca wrote:

---

seattle prattle wrote:

---

agip wrote:

---

seattle prattle wrote:
Igy, if one had invested $10 K in apple on the day you mentioned, March 2000, how much would it be worth today?
A mere $10K would be worth almost $1,389,000.
Does that give you pause about high valuations and how much you might weight you might give to them in this day and age?

---

unfair to look at just one stock
and anyway, apple was a value stock back then, often considered likely to go out of business, so it's actually partly an argument for Igy's point of view - that buying cheap is how to do this best.

---

No, Apple was not a value stock. Are you kidding? It was among the poster child of the internet/tech stocks that were considered grossly over valued. The same stuff was spouted then about growth stocks of this ilk.
Maybe before your time, but i remember it well.
Apple was considered one of the bubble stocks.
Remember, it IPO'd twenty years earlier.

---

Seattle prattle is right. AAPL was a 10 bagger from Dec 1998 to Mar 2000, it then proceeded to drop 80% by the end of the year.

---

I'm talking whether apple had a low valuation, not its performance in the 90s.
have to define times to talk about apple's valuation.
Through most of the 90s its PE was around 15, because Apple was considered a hardware company that would eventually disappear. It was never really a high-PE dot com stock.
The Ipod didn't come out until 2003 - until then it was a niche computer maker.
here's a chart...you can see Apple's PE was in the teens most of the time, as late as 2012. Scroll down a bit to see it.

https://www.thefrugalprof.com/apple-the-valuation-debate/

---

AAPL's PE in March 2000 was 32+, it had no TTM PE for most of 97 and 98 because it had no earnings. It's PE wasn't as crazy as some of the others, but it wasn't a Buffett cigar butt.

---

---

agip wrote:

---

la gente esta muy loca wrote:

---

seattle prattle wrote:

---

agip wrote:

---

seattle prattle wrote:
Igy, if one had invested $10 K in apple on the day you mentioned, March 2000, how much would it be worth today?
A mere $10K would be worth almost $1,389,000.
Does that give you pause about high valuations and how much you might weight you might give to them in this day and age?

---

unfair to look at just one stock
and anyway, apple was a value stock back then, often considered likely to go out of business, so it's actually partly an argument for Igy's point of view - that buying cheap is how to do this best.

---

No, Apple was not a value stock. Are you kidding? It was among the poster child of the internet/tech stocks that were considered grossly over valued. The same stuff was spouted then about growth stocks of this ilk.
Maybe before your time, but i remember it well.
Apple was considered one of the bubble stocks.
Remember, it IPO'd twenty years earlier.

---

Seattle prattle is right. AAPL was a 10 bagger from Dec 1998 to Mar 2000, it then proceeded to drop 80% by the end of the year.

---

I'm talking whether apple had a low valuation, not its performance in the 90s.
have to define times to talk about apple's valuation.
Through most of the 90s its PE was around 15, because Apple was considered a hardware company that would eventually disappear. It was never really a high-PE dot com stock.
The Ipod didn't come out until 2003 - until then it was a niche computer maker.
here's a chart...you can see Apple's PE was in the teens most of the time, as late as 2012. Scroll down a bit to see it.

https://www.thefrugalprof.com/apple-the-valuation-debate/

---

Of course you are assuming it stays the same or gets better for those companies from here.

---

seattle prattle wrote:

---

agip wrote:

---

la gente esta muy loca wrote:

---

seattle prattle wrote:

---

agip wrote:

---

seattle prattle wrote:
Igy, if one had invested $10 K in apple on the day you mentioned, March 2000, how much would it be worth today?
A mere $10K would be worth almost $1,389,000.
Does that give you pause about high valuations and how much you might weight you might give to them in this day and age?

---

unfair to look at just one stock
and anyway, apple was a value stock back then, often considered likely to go out of business, so it's actually partly an argument for Igy's point of view - that buying cheap is how to do this best.

---

No, Apple was not a value stock. Are you kidding? It was among the poster child of the internet/tech stocks that were considered grossly over valued. The same stuff was spouted then about growth stocks of this ilk.
Maybe before your time, but i remember it well.
Apple was considered one of the bubble stocks.
Remember, it IPO'd twenty years earlier.

---

Seattle prattle is right. AAPL was a 10 bagger from Dec 1998 to Mar 2000, it then proceeded to drop 80% by the end of the year.

---

I'm talking whether apple had a low valuation, not its performance in the 90s.
have to define times to talk about apple's valuation.
Through most of the 90s its PE was around 15, because Apple was considered a hardware company that would eventually disappear. It was never really a high-PE dot com stock.
The Ipod didn't come out until 2003 - until then it was a niche computer maker.
here's a chart...you can see Apple's PE was in the teens most of the time, as late as 2012. Scroll down a bit to see it.

https://www.thefrugalprof.com/apple-the-valuation-debate/

---

Again, no. Apple was never a value stock. If its p/e was in the 15s in the '90s, that was about the average for the S&P 500 during the 90's which largely ranged from about 15 to 25. So it was right in line with that index.
The iMac laptop was released in 1998 and would go on to be tremendously successful. The first ipod came out in Nov. 2001. The Apple store opened back then too, but can't remember the date, as did iTunes. ANd being there in those years, Apple was known as a very elegant alternative operating system to the relatively crude Dos Microsoft system. And at about that time (1997), Microsoft announced that they would be partnering with Apple in several capacities, including financially.
Yes, Apple was seen as struggling esp. in the '90s as Steve Jobs came back to rescue the company, but so were the likes of Amazon and Google. And that is precisely my point, These companies were never seen as value plays and have always been painted as over-valued growth plays.
Now, Apple is and has been lower in p/e than their FAANG counterparts, but not so much as to throw it into a value play. It was the same back then as we hear now - grossly overvalued, but look where it turned out. And this is relevant to Igy's remark about the index because Apple and FAANG are a major reason that the index has the high valuation that it does.

---

Apple is clearly not a growth stock. Net income was $53.394 Billion in 2015 and $57.411 Billion in 2020. If you split adjust, most of the net income gains are from stock buybacks. So all you are really seeing is investors believing there is growth, when there is not, and paying a higher multiple for a unit of earnings.

---

Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Apple is clearly not a growth stock. Net income was $53.394 Billion in 2015 and $57.411 Billion in 2020. If you split adjust, most of the net income gains are from stock buybacks. So all you are really seeing is investors believing there is growth, when there is not, and paying a higher multiple for a unit of earnings.

---

---

la gente esta muy loca wrote:
Hey Racket, have you seen this ?

https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/l1u036/wsb_gets_emotional_on_mad_money/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb

---

Gamestop up another 60% premarket, to over $103.
This was in the teens last month.
Just a squeeze, so much fun to watch tho
Although you have to feel sorry for the fundies short the stock...this sort of thing has little to do with analysis and everything to do with a feeding frenzy.
It will destroy the record for several hedge funds, I'm sure, although they have all year to dig out of a hole.

---

agip wrote:Gamestop up another 60% premarket, to over $103.

---

GME now up 85% today, to $120.

I'm seeing a pattern...
, the wired world + free money to borrow + everyone at home trading their own account + machine trading + AI + a growing economy _+ the get rich overnight succcess of BTC and TSLA =

massive movement when a trade starts working.

I mean people at home are throwing money at GME now, ripping the money from hedgies hand over fist. It's not based on fundamentals and there is no real limit to where these trades have to end...
I mean GME could go to $1000. Who knows.
Probably a good strategy to join in these trades, but not get greedy...don't stay in for the last $1. Get in, make 20%, get out.

f'in cramer, trying to start squeezes
the stock is 25% up now.

https://twitter.com/jimcramer/status/1353719577524506626?s=20

---

agip wrote:Probably a good strategy to join in these trades, but not get greedy...don't stay in for the last $1. Get in, make 20%, get out.

---

---

VS-SJW-IR-TS idiot wrote:

---

agip wrote:Probably a good strategy to join in these trades, but not get greedy...don't stay in for the last $1. Get in, make 20%, get out.

---

Yeah, sore, maybe you make 20%. Also a non-zero chance you walk away with 20% of your stake. If you've got fun money to gamble with, why not I guess? Not for me thanks. Moved a little further toward cash today. Idiotic, I know... :-)

---