Apple's Stock Rose 86% in 2019 -- Partly Because Of AirPods (fool.com) 61
"Shares of Apple gained 86.2% in 2019, according to data from S&P Global Market Intelligence," reports the Motley Fool:
The tech stock's share price tracked relatively closely with momentum for the broader market for much of the year and then dramatically outperformed from September through December thanks to strong performance for its wearables products.
iPhone Sales were down from 2018, but they still came in ahead of expectations, and the company's business was lifted by strong performance for its wearables segment... Growth for Apple's services segment (which includes revenue generated from the company's mobile app store and subscription-based offerings like Apple Music) also slowed in the year. However, explosive growth for AirPods, promising momentum for the Apple Watch, and the promise of a bigger tech and feature leap for the iPhone line in 2020 powered a great year for Apple stock. Toni Sacconaghi, an analyst at Bernstein Research, estimates that AirPod sales came in at roughly $6 billion in 2019 and nearly doubled compared to 2018.
The Bernstein analyst projects that AirPod revenue will hit $15 billion in 2020.
iPhone Sales were down from 2018, but they still came in ahead of expectations, and the company's business was lifted by strong performance for its wearables segment... Growth for Apple's services segment (which includes revenue generated from the company's mobile app store and subscription-based offerings like Apple Music) also slowed in the year. However, explosive growth for AirPods, promising momentum for the Apple Watch, and the promise of a bigger tech and feature leap for the iPhone line in 2020 powered a great year for Apple stock. Toni Sacconaghi, an analyst at Bernstein Research, estimates that AirPod sales came in at roughly $6 billion in 2019 and nearly doubled compared to 2018.
The Bernstein analyst projects that AirPod revenue will hit $15 billion in 2020.
"Courage" (Score:4, Insightful)
The operating motto of Phil Schiller.
I can't imagine a greater insult to the intelligence of the general population, but especially to those that show true courage by risking their lives everyday, etc. than to claim removing a headphone jack was something "courageous".
Re:"Courage" (Score:4, Informative)
History has shown it was (Score:2)
claim removing a headphone jack was something "courageous".
You know, I didn't think so either at the time he said that.
Until I saw waver after wave of irrational hatred that followed - so in the end, he was right, it was courageous. What other companies did it first?
You know what made it courage instead of stupidity? Because everyone else saw it was a good idea and followed.
Having hindsight now, to argue it was not courageous to remove a feature many would go on to complain about missing, makes it look li
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure everyone else saw it was a good idea? Lots who followed are putting it back.
It was a good idea for Apple, because they got to sell more AirPods at insane markup. But that doesn't translate to every other manufacturer.
Re: (Score:2)
Lots who followed are putting it back.
Cite?
Re: History has shown it was (Score:1)
Rather, a few saw it was a good idea for Apple, and they thought they might be similar enough and tried to follow. Nobody fully followed.
Re: "Courage" (Score:2)
There are different types of courage. Schiller is not equating a business decision with running into a burning building, two entirely separate things.
Re: (Score:1)
To be fair, pointing out Apple as if they're the only ones to do that is hypocritical at best. All tech companies use the same low-cost Chinese labor.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Did the OP say that Apple was the only company that did it? Because, I don't see where they said that.
Apple actually cares abut China unlike you (Score:4, Informative)
Apple stock rose 86% because the slave wages they pay their sweatshops in China
Apple pays more than any other tech company (including yearly raises) manufacturing in China and is one of the few monitoring conditions [apple.com].
Find a report like that from ANY other company.
Peddle your lies somewhere people are not smart.
I wonder what company you brought your slave-labor computer from? Cast not the first stone...
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder what company you brought your slave-labor computer from? Cast not the first stone...
As you said, it doesn't matter which one. They're all the same. Some posture a little more assertively than others.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Average wages in China went up almost 11% in 2018 over previous year. They went up every other year of the 2010s too. GINI dropped for the first half of the 2010s, then rebounded a little starting in 2015, so factory workers are likely seeing some of that rise.
Also because interest rates are super low (Score:5, Insightful)
The crash is on it's way and it's gonna suuuuuuuck.
The rich are worse off (Score:2, Interesting)
there isn't a lot else to invest in and the rich are flush with cash thanks to a massive tax cut
Everyone got a tax cut (you and me too). But the extra money the rich got back is often mostly vaporized thaks to also repealing the deduction on state taxes.
Of course, guess who is trying to repeal that bill which really only affects the rich to a large degree.... hint, it rhymes (sort of) with Hypocrocrats.
My taxes went up (Score:3, Insightful)
Also in 6 years all the tax cuts for you and me expire (right when a Democrat is likely to be in office, go figure). And that's before we talk about how 83% of the tax cuts went to the top and how they used the money for risky investments, stock buy backs, automation & outsourcing.
8#% figure is false, was false before bill passed (Score:1, Informative)
And that's before we talk about how 83% of the tax cuts went to the top
Please stop parroting Democrats, who tend to lie [factcheck.org] about taxes.
In 2018, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, the top 1 percent of income earners would glean 20.5 percent of the tax cut benefits
Read the whole thing as the situation is vasty more complex than you make out (as you'd expect when talking tax law).
Again, none of that actually factors in things like money then lost to other taxes increased on the rich, like being u
You do know the "Tax Policy Center" (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
This statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding of economics. Tax cuts don't impact business investment. Business investment isn't taxable.
More simply put: Has a poor person ever given you a job? So far, in my 25 years of employment, every single one of my employers has been
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This statement shows a fundamental misunderstanding of economics. Tax cuts don't impact business investment. Business investment isn't taxable.
What are you on about. People invest more when there's a larger potential return on their investment. Lower tax rates on businesses means that there's more profit left, or a greater return. This naturally makes investment more attractive.
Are you sure it isn't you who has a fundamental misunderstanding of economics. If taxes had no impact on business investment, then clearly raising the business tax rate to 100% wouldn't have an effect. Of course it should be obvious why that's an utterly illogical positi
There has to be a potential return first (Score:2)
Businesses don't hire and invest to create demand, they do it to meet demand. It takes scientific advancement to create demand from nothing. Think about computers. That was demand from nothing. But just giving a businessman a tax cut wouldn't have sold computers. We needed to invent them first, and that was by and large done with gov't money because no business will pay for basic research.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That wasn't his argument. For your comparison, his argument was that nothing the gardener could do (short of seeding more weeds) could create more work for himself, the amount of weeds that need pulling is the demand.
Of course this is incorrect, he could create more work for himself through advertising. Of course this doesn't create more total work, so someone else will lose out.
Re: (Score:2)
His argument was that nothing the gardener could do could "create demand from nothing." I think his wording was pretty carefully chosen to indicate that he was talking about actual economy wide demand, rather than just the gardener grabbing more pie from someone else.
I disagree with him though. Wealth creates demand. When people have money, they think of all kinds of things they'd like to have
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's not what that means. Taxes are applied to whatever profit is left over. If taxes are high, businesses invest more. If taxes are low, they pull the money out. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the basics of business and taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Increase that rate of return via tax-cuts and those tax cuts increase business investment.
Labor is a business expense that I'm only going to spend money on (in the case of my very small business) only if I have more work than I can reasonably do myself. Saving a bit on my taxes just goes right into my bank account.
Furthermore, if I am going to hire a laborer, I'm going to pay current market rates for that labor and not a penny more. I don't go to my wholesaler and tell 'em "Hey, I just saved a bunch on my taxes, so go ahead and charge me a few extra bucks on that replacement compressor [johnstonesupply.com], mmmkay
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess they didn't cover the part where actual demand is limited at any particular price point? As in, the demand curve?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've never had a rich person give me a job. I've been employed by several corporations or similar legal entities, all of which didn't have to pay taxes on the money they spent employing me.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because an investment is made doesn't mean it will have a positive return, only if there is demand for the product invested in can the money be made back.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know where you got that 83% number (no cite) or how narrowly you define the top (top 1%, 10%, ???), but i'm willing to bet if it's correct it shows they got less of a tax cut. If you pay 90% of the taxes, and received 83% of the tax cut instead of 90%, that means someone below you got a greater share.
But we'll never know, because you quoted random numbers out of context.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, me too. Tax cut was good to me, but didn’t make any positive impact on employees.
But, the tax cut did change certain behaviors for me and results in me realizing capital gains rather than kiting along using securities backed loans for cash flow. This resulted in increased state and federal taxes paid, and will continue while the tax breaks are in effect. After that, who knows.
Re: (Score:1)
The stock market in general, is just rich people trying to play a game of financial chicken against each other.
I'm sure at some point the performance of the companies they're buying into used to factor in, but these days stocks may as well be cryptocurrency. Tesla is a great example, where the value of the stock seems to fluctuate more on how likely investors feel they'll be able to find the next greater fool, rather than Tesla's actual ability to profitably churn out EVs.
Fluctuation is because of fools for sure... (Score:2)
Tesla is a great example, where the value of the stock seems to fluctuate more on how likely investors feel they'll be able to find the next greater fool
I don't think you realize that Tesla shorts are all toast now, so there is no more greater fool to be found...
Tesla's actually value is quite a lot more than the stock price indicates when you factor in the other areas Tesla has large stakes and eventual returns in (Solar power, large scale battery tech).
But by all means do continue to harp on Tesla and thi
Re: (Score:1)
You've got your stock market basics completely backwards.
When investors feel good about the supply of greater fools, they drive the price up.
When investors feel the greater fool pool is has dried up, that's when they short stocks.
Again, the value is determined more by how likely you think you'll be able to sell the stock later to someone else (the greater fool) at a higher price, rather than any actual business-type stuff going on at the company. It got so bad with Tesla that the stock moved when Elon woul
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the people on Slashdot aren't in the 1%, but I'd be willing to be that they've done pretty well for themselves since 2008. The same is happening for a lot of people [aei.org], but don't let facts get in the way
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the people on Slashdot aren't in the 1%,
99% are not, obviously.
Re: (Score:2)
there isn't a lot else to invest in and the rich are flush with cash thanks to a massive tax cut and all of the gains since 2008 going to the top 1%.
Actually, Apple's stock price increase is mostly due to buybacks. This is why its market cap hasn't risen 89% even though the share price has.
The simple reason has zero to do with AirPods (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would that explain a (significant) increase in market capitalization?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Buying their stock back causes the share price to go up. If you look at their revenue it's been relatively flat. Definitely nothing that deserves an 86% share price rise anyway...
You're so clever. Buying a billion dollar worth of shares costs a billion dollars. The company is worth a billion dollars less after the purchase. The price would go up if the stock was undervalued (if Apple managed to buy the shares for 1 billion worth of company at a cost of 500 million) or go down if the stock was overvalued (if Apple paid 2 billion for 1 billion worth of company).
One reason why the share price is going up is because Apple makes tons of profits every year, and that profit increases th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Um... I got the implications of the calculation. While a 4-digit UID might mean senile now, I assure you that I am intimately familiar with the value of shares Apple bought back, and while I assumed at the time it was to make the company smaller and match earnings growth, it has turned out to be a fantastic investment for shareholders.
Re: (Score:2)
Buying your stock back signals to investors that the company thinks their market cap is lower than it should be. Since stock buyback is the legal form of insider trading, the market tends to take that signal seriously and revalues accordingly.
Diversity with True wireless + / - (Score:2)