Apple Becomes First US Company To Reach $3 Trillion Market Cap (cnbc.com) 51
Apple hit a market cap of $3 trillion during intraday trading on Monday, tripling its valuation in under four years. Apple broke the barrier when its share price hit $182.86. From a report: The milestone is mostly symbolic but it shows investors remain bullish on Apple stock and its ability to grow. Apple showed annual growth across all of its product categories in its fourth-quarter earnings, with revenue up 29% year-over-year. While the iPhone is still the biggest sales driver, Apple's services business grew 25.6% year-over-year and delivered more than $18 billion in revenue during the quarter. And analysts see plenty of room to run. In December, for example, Morgan Stanley's Katy Huberty raised the firm's price target on Apple from $164 to $200, and maintained the equivalent of a buy rating, arguing that new products like virtual reality and augmented reality headsets aren't yet baked into the share price. Huberty also said she expects Apple's App Store revenue to outperform Morgan Stanley's forecasts for the quarter and for Apple to ship 83 million units during the December quarter, 3 million more than anticipated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody pays taxes out of the goodness of their heart. Even all these rich people who complain that they don't pay enough taxes still have armies of lawyers and accountants that try to squeeze every last penny off their tax bill and they never pay more than exactly what they owe.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Pay your fair share! (Score:4, Informative)
It's popular to jump on the tax the rich companies bandwagon, but honestly corporate income tax never made the a lot of sense. In nearly all cases, especially a company like Apple, tax burdens are passed on to their customers. In other words it's factored into their prices.
Re: (Score:2)
What does that have to do with actually paying tax/not?
Does apple not use any state-built roads or hire any state-educated people when they do business? How about giving something back?
Re: (Score:2)
Does apple not use any state-built roads
No, they do not.
Their employees do, and they pay taxes.
Their customers do, and they pay taxes.
The employees of other companies such as that Apple contracts with, such as truck drivers, janitors, electricians, plumbers, do, and they pay taxes.
Apple, the abstract entity that exists only as coordinated activities of a bunch of people, does not use any roads whatsoever.
Now, if you want to propose road usage fees for trucks that are higher that are higher than for cars that would be perfectly reasonable. But cha
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If you follow that argument to its logical conclusion the only people paying for roads should be the tire companies.
Repeat: Apple's success depends 100% on the economic conditions and infrastructure provided by the country where it does business.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not entirely correct - the burden of the tax could also be borne by the shareholders, in the form of reduced dividends, or by the exorbitantly overpaid CxO class.
Re: Pay your fair share! (Score:2)
Most newer companies do not pay dividends. Apple does pay them but companies like Google or Tesla do not. So taxing at the dividend level would not help much here.
Re: (Score:3)
Taxing the rich and taxing corporations are two separate things.
Taxing corporations makes a lot of sense, because they pass the cost on to their customers. It's an efficient way of pricing in externalities, use of public resources, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
It's popular to jump on the tax the rich companies bandwagon, but honestly corporate income tax never made the a lot of sense. In nearly all cases, especially a company like Apple, tax burdens are passed on to their customers. In other words it's factored into their prices.
Well, yes. That's the point. It's paid by THEIR CUSTOMERS, not me. Why am I supposed to pay Apple's tax for them?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple paid more than that (Score:1, Informative)
For the twelve months ending September 30th [macrotrends.net], 2021 Apple paid 14.52 BILLION dollars in taxes.
Which is more than you will ever pay, even if you lived a thousand lifetimes.
You are confused (Score:1)
Considering APPL is 3 : 1.2 larger than TSLA by market cap
Why consider that? After all we are talking about Elon Musk's PERSONAL tax bill compared to Apple's, not TSLA the company.
Re: (Score:2)
For the twelve months ending September 30th [macrotrends.net], 2021 Apple paid 14.52 BILLION dollars in taxes.
Which is more than you will ever pay, even if you lived a thousand lifetimes.
. . .And which any typical warmongering President can squander in any "Police Action" somewhere half-a-world-away in less than half that time!
Re: (Score:2)
Define "fair share".
Re: (Score:1)
With the Wall Street bailouts (Score:1)
It's all Funny Money. Let's see them try to cash out a tenth of that.
Bad at math? (Score:1)
Considering Apple has $200B of cash and securities on hand I don't think that would be an issue.
Yes but 3 *Trillion* dollars is quite a lot more than 200 billion.
I like Apple and think they have an incredibly bright future ahead, but it is absolutely insane they are valued over 3 trillion dollars, even if they did develop Ted Lasso.
Disclaim: I own no Apple stock anymore so I am probably just salty about watching something rise I used to own. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
They earn about 3tril$ in 3 years
Not remotely close to three trillion (Score:1)
They earn about 3tril$ in 3 years
Apple Reports 4Q 2021 Results: $20.6B Profit on $83.4B Revenue [macrumors.com]
How much is 20 * 4 * 3 again? Is that equal to 3000, or nah?
Even if you assume it still grows the same amount YOY, that's not 3 trillion in profit in three years. Not even close. Maybe a trillion profit in a decade and you have to assume some good continued growth the whole time.
Re: (Score:2)
Revenue not profit
Re: (Score:1)
Revenue not profit
Fine what is 89M * 4 * 3? Is that 3000??
Maybe you should ACTUALLY DO THE MATH before you talk nonsense.
You are still more than two TRILLION dollars short of what you stated.
Re: (Score:2)
That money will run out in the fall when consumers spend the last of it, then things will get wild
Feudalism Returns (Score:2)
The new feudal baronies and dukedoms aren't geographic, but they have comparable populations and powers.
I've forgotten who pointed it out - that the tech titans are almost routinely libertarians, that go on and on about freedom to innovate and prosper, and the Dead Hand of government, etc. But their own little empires are all ruthlessly-dominating, top-down pyramids that any feudal lord would recognize at once.
Re: (Score:2)
Libertarianism does not conflict with your perception of how the tech titans operate. Property rights is an important part of libertarianism, it's their property and they can operate it however they wish as long as they aren't hurting or abusing others.
Employees are at will and can leave whenever they want. Serfs were essentially slaves and had no such choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Or they are free to start their own business and run it however they want.
But most will probably just spend their time whining on the internet rather than taking steps to improve their lives. It's just easier.
Re: (Score:2)
The exception doth not the rule make. Just ask the other 99% of people who have done the two things you said were not possible.
Re: (Score:3)
Everybody seems to be missing my actual point, which is that if these guys thought that Libertarianism actually worked, they'd employ it as a governance structure inside their own company. Simply post the things that need to be done, let the employees get 'er done in their own way, rather than by direction from a boss. People are free to *leave* the company, but not free to work for the company by their own best judgement, trusting that the company will reward them for their productivity, as Libertarian
Re: (Score:2)
You have to remember that this "value" isn't based on anything real, it's just a game played by people like Katy Huberty to make herself richer.
Re: (Score:2)
A company isn't real? Or are you talking about crypto
Re: (Score:1)
The market value is made up. That's his point. They don't HAVE $3 Trillion in combined cash and assets. Wall St numbers are all made up bullshit that don't actually mean anything. We all know that's a true fact. Look at what happened with GameStop - its "value" was all over the place and at no point was it a real valuation. Stock markets always have been and always will be a fucking stupid, terrible concept. You can make any counterarguments you like, and it won't matter - they are absolute garbage systems
Re: (Score:3)
The idea that Katy Huberty (or anybody else) knows what the stock price ought to be is lunacy of the first order.
Re: (Score:1)
They earn about 300 billion a quarter and that number could go up, in a year they make 1.2trillion dollars. They also offer a dividend and the eps is 5$ per share per quarter. That means if you buy the stuck right now at 182$ (with the eps being the same) in a year it would be worth 192$ which is 5% return plus dividend.
Yeah, I know how money is MADE or LOST on the market. This has nothing to do being valued at $3 trillion - a made up value. $182/share (if that is the current) - a made up value.
GME doesn't really have value.
Correct. But for a period of time it was EXTREMELY valuable for no good reason other than bad market actors getting outflanked by other bad market actors whose sole purpose was to fuck the original bad market actors.
If you don't like capitalism, China and Russia offer some good alternatives. Sounds like you should take your own advice or go get an education.
There are plenty of other non-capitalist countries that aren't Western Tiawan and Russia - although, yes, capitalism i
Re: (Score:2)
They provide nothing of value that would cause society to cripple if they up and disappeared tomorrow. There are so many other industries/companies that are far more valuable to human life.
Yes, won't someone think of the poor tech, energy, banking, industrial food/farming, big pharma, entertainment, and housing industries!
In Most Situations... (Score:2)
During that same period, their revenue increased by about 40%. So a 40% revenue increase generates a three-fold valuation. In most situations, this would seem like the perfect opportunity to short, but then again no one in the past two decades has gotten rich by shorting the darling of the tech industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming people keep buying thier products at the rate that are, there earnings will go up. But the economy as a whole is in for a bumpy ride in the next year or two
So we gonna hear about this more and more often? (Score:2)
Going from $1T to $2T is a double, but each subsequent one is easier since it's a smaller percentage gain. So I guess we'll just keep hearing about them hitting another trillion in market cap more and more often.