Ask HN: Does Apple's upcoming $3T Market Cap encourage or scare You?

32 points by sigmaprimus ↗ HN
Apple was one of the first trillion dollar companies in 2018 has tripled it's "Value" in 3 years. This has occurred either because of, or in spite of, an ongoing global pandemic, impending environmental doom and countless other global threats.

I don't know what to make of this, am I missing something?

43 comments

[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 102 ms ] thread
To be fair, NASDAQ 100 also almost tripled in value in the same period, so it's not like Apple is a big outlier. It shows more about the socio-economic policies and environment we're going through than Apple itself.
Good point, it is definitely not just Apple. I personally feel that a huge and 50+ year old company like Apple puts things in perspective a bit more and is a harbinger of sorts.

I wonder if future historians will refer to it when recalling this moment in time, or if this will be just another mundane tick up in the history of the economy.

The fact that it has nearly tripled it's market value in just 3 years is amazing to me and some what terrifying TBH.

So I am safe to assume that You are in the scary camp?
this stuff is so interesting, it’s like the last bastion of people who want to be in complete control of everything that the interact with electronically, and they need the control so much that they insult anyone who doesn’t see it that way.

this is orthogonal to Stockholm syndrome, and it’s interesting to see such passion miss the point for mist people so fully

It is true that some people have an increased level of fear and concern when it comes to "Electronic" privacy. In some ways this is warranted from the history of abuse from withing this sector. But....

I am old enough to remember a time when 99% of people had their name, address and phone number listed in a public directory called the phone book. I have to admit I am somewhat wistful of that simpler and seemingly safer time.

Phone book is a totally different thing. You couldn't use it at scale and get profit out of that by manipulating people with ads.
To a first approximation I'm indifferent.

On one hand Apple sells a high volume of quality products. If you attempt to use one of these

https://www.samsung.com/us/tablets/tab-a7/

you can understand why Apple has a "monopoly" for good tablets and phones.

On the other hand it's also true that the stock market has gone up and up and up with no visible means of support. Even though the stock market has been largely unloved since the 2000 bubble pop and the 2008 rout, it was hovering between the high end of normal and the low end of "crazy bubble" before the Coronavirus came, GameStop and all that.

I have nothing against Apple. I take this as a larger sign that so much "funny money" has been injected into the economy over the past few years that large dollar amounts have started to become almost meaningless. Valuations are disconnected from objective reality. This is unlikely to end well.
the money the fed printed, what was the flow for it to end up in average Joe pockets?

i thought most of it stayed in the central banking system and it was up to banks to loan it out in order for it to reach common people. am i misunderstood?

You're not. The FED injects money into the banking system to prop up financial markets and lending activity (but mostly to other institutions - banks, business, wealthy clients - not people). Very little of that ends up in the average Joe's pocket.

It's been wonderful for shareholders. Everyone else gets to suffer from the ensuing inflation.

Quite a lot of it was simply mailing cheques to individuals this time. It was the previous QE that was used to buy distressed assets off banks, an activity which was surprisingly profitable in the long term.
Even the neediest families ended up getting like $4-5k or something like that. Individuals got less. Literally enough to pay rent and feed families for a couple of months. No one got fat and happy off of stimulus money - some people just got less poor.
Obviously a generalization but it mostly doesnt leave financial markets.

Little bits do trickle out but a huge percentage doesnt. Real estate being the exception, but id pretty much call us real estate a financial market anyway at this point.

"Scare" maybe isn't quite the right term here but the general concentration of wealth we're seeing in society right now definitely does not fill me with hope. I don't think the end result is going to be a good one.
The world as a whole nonetheless grows more prosperous, 5% last year. There are going to be bad outcomes for a whole bunch of people, and some of the doom is real - I wouldn't invest in Florida beachfront property, for example. But "the system" is remarkably resilient as a whole. And it concentrates wealth upwards. It's like the demolition of an Amazon warehouse by tornadoes: it killed six people, but none of them were Jeff Bezos, who still gets to go to space.
That is a very interesting point You bring up. I have not looked into Amazon stock value changes resulting from the warehouse destruction.

I shamefully must admit that I have become so desensitized to disaster that the tornadoes have not had the impact on me they would have had just a few short years ago.

The fact that my focus is on the state of the economy rather than the tragedy of my fellow man is something that is going to make me self evaluate my priorities.

> I shamefully must admit that I have become so desensitized to disaster that the tornadoes have not had the impact on me they would have had just a few short years ago.

It's been a bizarre transition. At the peak of the pandemic New York was losing a 9/11 worth of people every week. The UK peak was 1,325, which exceeds pretty much any list of Famous UK Disasters - Aberfan, Piper Alpha, Hillsborough, Grenfell, Bloody Sunday, etc - put together.

FAANG flourish because 1. lockdowns boost tech use 2. runaway money printing to fund the pandemic devalues money and forces people to invest. Both are at the direct expense of ordinary people whose businesses and savings are being destroyed. FAANG + pharma + gov now comprise a powerful coalition that controls information streams and regulation and which is incentivized to proceed with 'new normal' measures forever, regardless of their medical merit, and I wish it were possible to discuss this more openly and critically without devolving into a polarized left wing-right wing polemic.
Yeah, a bit because I'd argue at least 3 of largest stocks in the major indexes are now extremely overvalued -- AAPL, NVDA and TSLA.

Historically AAPL was valued with a PE around to 10-15, but today it's trading with a PE over 30. This alone may not be a huge problem if it wasn't also for the fact AAPL's best growth years are likely behind them and they'll may struggle to continue to justify their valuation.

Over the last few years many stocks have seen significant multiple expansions without similar expansions in the fundamentals. On one hand it could be argued the multiple expansion seen in recent years has been justified given where interest rates are and the pandemic stimulus measures, but regardless of whether what we're seeing is the reflection of economic policy or a market bubble, it's clearly not sustainable.

The risk of course is that inflation starts to run away and the FED need to remove liquidity and raise rates much faster than the market is anticipating. In this scenario we'll see the opposite of what happened in 2020/2021 and stock multiples will drop like a rock. If you're a regular person though without significant amounts invested in the market then the risk to you is that inflation remains hot slowly eroding into your savings, wages and purchasing power. Either way, it's probably not great news and there's probably a reason why CEO's and insiders are selling their stock holdings at record rates.

> Historically AAPL was valued with a PE around to 10-15, but today it's trading with a PE over 30.

I've seen an interview with this fund manager saying something along the lines of "this high P/E is the new normal, those companies are really better, more sustainable and profitable than their historical peers"... Maybe there's a bullish case there, or maybe so much money was printed and then funneled to financial assets and real estate.

Maybe it's just having lived through the first internet bubble, but when I see fund managers making statements like that, it makes me nervous.
Inflation tends to push the market up because there's a dash away from bonds to equities.

> reason why CEO's and insiders are selling their stock holdings at record rates.

[citation needed]; and what are they putting this into? Real estate? Obviously if you fear inflation you aren't going to take it back to cash.

With Apple potentially entering automotive space as well as VR, I find it unlikely that they've peaked. They've consistently demonstrated that they're not a company interested in sitting still. Move to Apple Silicon alone shows their continued commitment to throwing the industry for a loop.
> AAPL, NVDA and TSLA

P/E of 30, 85, and 310, respectively. Not exactly in the same league.

> AAPL's best growth years are likely behind them

You could encounter that opinion literally every year for more than a decade (PREDATING the introduction of the iPhone, because pundits said this about the iPod, and technically, they were right). Thermodynamics suggests that one day, this prediction will come true, but in terms of market timing, it has not proven a sound investment thesis so far.

Disclosure: I own stock in some of the companies mentioned here.

Perhaps missing:

"Apple reported total annual sales for 2021 of $365.8 billion, up a significant 33% from the $274.5 billion it reported in 2020. Gross margins for the 2021 year were up 45.6% from the year ago."

"Amazon revenue for the twelve months ending September 30, 2021 was $457.965B, a 31.62% increase year-over-year."

Go ahead and short the Standard Oils of today. If/when they are broken up, the sum of parts will be worth even more.

Personally i think Amazon will prove to be undervalued and Apple will prove to be over valued.
Amazon will need to switch from annual share dilution to annual share buybacks first.
Right but if anything that's part of the argument. They haven't even started playing financial games to optimize share price yet because they haven't had to.

They have a lot of runway to pump those numbers when they are ready.

Zero chance Apple gets broken up.

They have too little of marketshare for any market that they participate in.

Exactly. The only market where that can haven is Mobile, particularly the digital storefront, and if Epic hasn't been able to challenge then successfully...

Heck, even if Apple is required to allow third part app stores, their subscription services alone make a huge amount of money, and most users wouldn't want to leave the app store walled garden.

Recall that had the pandemic stimulus been sent directly to Americans it would have put over $10k into every living American’s bank account.

Instead, most of it went to propping up the system that benefits everyone a little bit, but benefits the very wealthy a lottttttt.

The solution is clearly to increase direct payment amounts to get better micro-voting about where value lies in the economy, and to siphon the net amount accumulating to the very wealthy with progressive taxes and a fully funded IRS that can utilize high tech to track law-skirting financial moves.

But of course this won’t happen, the democrats are already fighting to lower taxes for the rich who live on the coasts.

Oh well. These valuations driven by a small percentage of Americans who own all the stocks are mostly a sign that the wealthy who got a lot of money don’t know what to spend it on (that’s why it’s better to pay Americans directly… on average).

(comment deleted)
The definition of a 3 trillion dollar company is a company with a 3 trillion dollar market cap. Market cap is shares outstanding times the last price shares were traded at.

The right question is “Are shares of Apple overvalued, fair-valued, or undervalued?” Apple currently has a total annual yield of 3.5% which is 2.9% from share buybacks and 0.6% from dividends. It’s P/E is 32 and it’s revenue growth rate last year was allegedly 28%. It used to have a P/E of between 10-15 but the Nasdaq 100 index has a P/E of 30. This leads me to believe Apple is fairly valued relative to it’s peers but it’s more shareholder friendly that it’s peers because of share buybacks, dividends and voting rights.

I believe the 3 Trillion dollar market cap is justified and that neither scares me nor encourages me. Most people are better-off because of Apple’s contributions to the world —- shareholders, consumers, and employees.

Warren Buffett says it’s far better to be invested in U.S. companies that have exposure to China rather than any Chinese companies directly. He also likes companies with a large cash position. Apple is both of those two things. In a flight to safety, Apple shares may actually go up instead of down.

My biggest concern for Apple is the recent, repeated IOS Zero-day software exploits.

> In a flight to safety, Apple shares may actually go up instead of down.

Unlikely. AAPL may outperform in a flight to safety (which is different from going up). But the sheer amount of gamma that has squeezed AAPL suggests this may not be the case. A huge chunk of NDX is in a technical bear market, with the index held up by a few names. It’s very likely that in the next downturn, AAPL underperforms.

(comment deleted)
Apple owns a platform. They can screw devs over and expect to be paid for the service.

They’re willing to go international.

And just think of all the things they could be doing but aren’t. Servers. PCs. Software. Social networking.

Anything they want.