David Emery on Apple bungee jumps to $349.51, a new record close - 'And consider the price targets posted here on the previous post… Will Apple have to give back money to meet some of them?'
on Premarket: Apple is green - 'Well, Ternus’s decision to do Earnings before the Election paid off, as any negative views of the guidance were swamped and then some by the election results and positive rising sentiment for Apple and AAPL shares, IMO. A nice, ho hum steady up day for AAPL shares, hitting a new all time intraday high ATIDH of $354.47 (up as high as +$23, +6.8%) and a slight pullback at the close to $349.51, to a gain of $17.61, +5.31%, and a new All Time Closing High ATCH, 2nd in last 5 trading sessions. Volume was a heavy 85M shares. Wonder what the shorts are contemplating now? I’m sure some will say “the stock has gotten way ahead of itself, so I’ll double down and short again from here.” Please do!! I read on a Yahoo Finance page comment that “no way AAPL should be this high, on any normal metric the stock is only worth about $60.” That’s why there are so many haters out there, AAPL stock and its investors can’t seem to understand why every Talking Head wants to rate this company as a simple hardware stock that MUST stick to its 5 year, no, 10 year, no, 15 year PE average (or whatever metric makes it look way overvalued), otherwise the Talking Heads’ heads just explode and can’t make sense of it. Yesterday, one of the CNBC hacks said AAPL was still to rich at $332 and a forward PE of 36, there’s no way it’s going higher with a measly 9-11% revenue growth rate, he said he’d rather own Google here because it’s already been beaten down, and has a PE of only 15, because it’s cheap and that cheap is because its earnings are so high, or its price is so low (at $288 today, it’s down 30% from its $407 May 2026 52 week high, that’s not just correction territory or a bear market, that’s a Crash! ). I guess he loves a bargain that just might go lower if the AI bubble bursts further, I mean it will eventually retake that high, right?'
on Apple price target changes - '“Or other peoples’ reports” I long determined that financial advisors do not have the time to closely follow (like we do on PED 3.0) all the stocks that are relevant to their clientele. It didn’t take me long to realize that I knew much more about Apple (management, products, R&D) than my advisor did. If they are lucky, they may follow 1 or 2 as I follow Apple. For the rest of the stocks they are advising on, they rely of other advisors or analysts who they trust (who also major on 1 or 2 stocks). So in reality, my advisor may ‘know’ 1 or 2, but rely on others for recommendations on all other stocks. I feel very fortunate that the 1 stock that I follow closely just happens to be Apple.'
on Apple price target changes - 'Hi, Richard, Apple doesn’t need more cash, which is why there are buybacks in the first place. Also, let’s remember that everyone, not just Apple, will benefit from any lowered price for RAM. Finally, unless the Republicans start seriously waving a white flag, which I pessimistically and possibly cynically do not expect, they will stonewall for the next two months, and join this Administration in doing as much damage as they can. We won a battle, IMO. The War goes on, and opponents (I can’t call them the “loyal opposition”) still have a LOT of firepower they can direct. My opinion: It’s too soon for live and let live.'
on Apple price target changes - 'Paraphrasing what Smith-Barney used to say: “Apple makes money the old-fashioned way – they EARN it!” 🙂'
on Premarket: Apple is green - 'Still some oddly contradictory moves though: NVDA and other chip-makers are down, presumably on the thinking that AI datacenter buildout is going to be hampered and chip sales affected… but GOOG and MSFT are still up a lot, despite the catastrophic effect of their AI build-out plans on their financials and their significant exposure to Anthropic and SpaceX for GOOG, and OpenAI for MSFT. Chip prices going down only benefits hyperscalers if the scale of their plans retracts and the demand for chips drops… but then that kills their hyperscaling plans, and kills the frontier model developers’ plans and financials… which maybe the market thinks is a good thing for GOOG and MSFT?? Unless it’s a case of people not really thinking about implications of the Democratic wave, because they never understood the hyperscaler financials in the first place? All I know is I’m still using increases in GOOG and MSFT in the next two weeks as opportunities to sell what I have left of them.'
on Apple price target changes - 'I can see there are a few outliers in this list and some noticeable absences of Bulls (Dan Ives who reiterated $400 price target) who I guess haven’t changed their targets so not on the list. Given the average of this list is 351.45. I am not seeing the wisdom of the crowd in this yet. I think it is underestimating Apple potential positives. And the average is under today’s current 352.65 (at 1:32PM price). So I would likely be disappointed if this average is correct a year out. I am sure there are a lot of different ways to manipulate numbers and just taking the analysts who have changed their numbers after earnings report is not showing me what really might be going on with the analyst community overall.'
on Apple price target changes - 'Given their cautious nature I suspect they’d wait a while to be sure it wasn’t a temporary swing.'
on Premarket: Apple is green - 'I just rehung my American Flag, on a non-holiday, for the first time since Trump was elected. I feel so good about that.'
on Apple price target changes - 'Given there are cost of living issues, in many parts of the world, Apple lowering prices accordingly would increase its addressable market. It would indeed be good optics and good business.'
on Apple price target changes - 'I’m curious what the Apple response will be price-wise wrt lower memory costs? Will it keep prices high and rake in a lot more profit? Will it drop prices to keep profits the same but gain market share? Can you imagine the feeding frenzy if Apple announced it was lowering prices? It would demonstrate that the raises were actually component costs and not greed. I think that would be a smart thing to do and garner a huge amount of good will going forward.'
on Apple price target changes - 'There are many reasons to believe AAPL is still undervalued and will be above $400 by this time next year: 1) Apple has barely begun to monetize AI apps and services. 2) New “anniversary” forms of Watch and iPhone rumored. These are likely to be fondle-worthy and drool-worthy. 3) Apple glasses on the horizon. 4) Memory prices will not always rise. 5) Foreign exchange prospects will not always move in a disadvantageous direction. And 6) — What seems to be true from recent history is that demand for high-end Apple products is relatively price-inelastic. And all this is before one even begins to account for macro-type reasons to own AAPL: 1) The company is not AI over-leveraged in the way all its big tech “peers” are. 2) It is the only big tech company that sells primarily to consumers, and its products and services are vital to most of them. 3) It makes a lot of money abroad, so is geographically diversified. And 4) it cannot easily be tarred with the same “AI is evil” brush as other tech companies, and in fact offers a reasonable path toward protecting oneself from those dangers.'
on What the midterm results mean for the AI buildout - 'Correction: “HALF of the American people are not synonymous…” (The other half got what they asked for.)'
