Jim Cramer: Why a Biden Presidency would be great for Apple

Cramer recorded two versions of what sounds a bit too much like an endorsement.

From the version on the MacOS Stocks App:

Apple needs Joe Biden to beat Donald Trump in the election in November and win the presidency.

Apple’s been walking this tightrope with the president about China, and the new iPhone will not hit its sales projections – it will miss its sales projections – if the president steps up the Cold War with the Chinese.

And we know because. … The new phone was issued yesterday. It’s a great phone. It’s a 5G. But – it needs China to buy. It’s a great tribute to [Apple Chief Executive] Tim Cook that he’s been able to appease everyone, both sides. He has been deft in his ability to explain why everyone could be a winner.

Biden knows this. And he has no animus against Apple. And while he doesn’t want to be as soft on China as previous Democrats, Apple stands to sell more iPhones under Biden than under Trump. And that’s really what it’s about.

In the YouTube version below, Apple comes in at the 2:25 point below:

My take: Is Cramer on steroids?

12 Comments

  1. Dan Scropos said:
    Biden has said he would raise the top corporate income tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent, and create a 21 percent country-by-country foreign minimum tax, a 15 percent minimum tax on companies’ global book income. I’m not exactly sure how that would affect Apple’s eps, but it doesn’t sound like it would help. Both candidates have pros and cons.

    1
    October 15, 2020
    • Ralph McDarmont said:
      Nope. I apologize to ped for politics, but Trump is … not good for the market. Nor the US or the world. Can you say NATO, environment, education, national debt, China blah blah blah. We are in biggly trouble, ✌️ Please ped do not ban me. I will try to quiet down. Not easy.

      4
      October 15, 2020
  2. Bart Yee said:
    From a geopolitical, trade and Apple-centric point of view, IMO, Cramer is right. Removing friction for Apple’s success in China would be very helpful. Sorting out and restarting bilateral reasonably fair trade balanced with substantial IP protection reforms would be even more helpful to US farmers (soybeans >$3B, grains >$550M, cotton >$950M, hides & skins >$600M) which in turn would help Agriculture-support companies like Deere, Pioneer seeds, fertilizer companies, and all the transport services and overseas shipping, pork producers >$600M, oil and refining companies, all automotive exports, etc.

    Reduced trade tensions would also lead to improved domestic costs for imported steel, aluminum and rare earth materials plus the lower cost finished consumer goods that US consumers are addicted to despite some protestations.

    In turn, reduced trade tensions would stabilize the stock market and reduced uncertainty would bode well for stock investments, plus aid Covid and Post-Covid recovery.

    IMO, sorting out trade issues would be the third to fifth parallel multitasking priority for a competent administration to deal with, along with Covid, Economic, Jobs, and Business recovery, current consumer bridge support till recovered, and rebuilding domestic and global confidence in US. IMO.

    3
    October 15, 2020
  3. Ralph McDarmont said:
    Lol. Cramer is a crackhead. Steroids are an appetizer. Cramer has pumped AAPL forever, and I am ok with that. I am not exactly a Cramer fan. He is typically more wrong than correct, but if you spout market stuff year after year, you are likely to hit a few home runs. Investors suffer a legion of ignorant “analysts” who pay their bills with clicks. Start any article with the word Apple and you have paid your bills for the day. No offense PED. You are a valuable exception with my absolute appreciation

    2
    October 15, 2020
  4. Joe Murphy said:
    Colleagues, what do you call it when someone acknowledges “House Rules,” then proceeds to break them, repeatedly?

    Obviously, we all feel strongly about Apple. That’s this site’s purpose and why we’re subscribers.

    Likely, we feel strongly about our politics — but that’s not why we’re here.

    So let’s comply with House Rules.

    Accept and respect no one will likely miss not hearing our political perspective.

    Instead, use our discipline to bite our tongue when we want to share our political savvy.

    1
    October 15, 2020
  5. Joe Murphy said:
    Oops, I timed out while editing:

    @ So let’s comply with House Rules. Our political comment, innocent as it may be, is often received by others as an invitation to for them to share theirs, which may or may not be so innocent.

    Then PED may feel the responsibility to stop the car.

    This drama can be avoided if we simply refuse our inclination to share our political savvy in the first place.

    They won’t miss what they don’t know.

    1
    October 15, 2020
    • David Drinkwater said:
      Joe Murphy:

      The topic of PED’s article is “Jim Cramer: Why a Biden Presidency would be great for Apple”.

      Apart from acknowledging that Jim Cramer is a info-TAINER, how does one address such a topic without talking politics?

      All things being equal (which, under current political circumstances, they most assuredly are not), I’m with Ralph McDarmont in response to Dan Scropos. Taxes are not the biggest problem that the businesses of the world need to solve.

      Fortunately, Apple seems to be doing a good job of addressing many of those issues, and, as Cramer points out, a lot of that comes from China, where Apple is applying real pressure on a foreign operation (its integrated supply chain) to address these issues as well. As an investor and an environmentalist, I am very excited to see Apple continuing to push the point about going carbon-neutral. That is a hard trick to push on suppliers.

      0
      October 17, 2020

Leave a Reply