Opinion on Apple

[swampman46]

I'm considering buying Apple stock-probably post split price, but my broker says they have Apple as a "hold" (he says the target price for apple is set at $650.) A bit hard to imagine not being a "buy", I would think there is alot of upside potential, but I may be wrong. Anyone have any thoughts? What do you guys hear?

[I make oil]

I think it's a great company and very strong but I've never owned them. The stock is just to high. I find I get good returns on cheaper stocks I can own in more volume. That's not saying anything against Apple it's just my psyche at work.

["W"]

When Apple spits and you don't buy

Same on you !!

[aquaholic]

Buy after split. I have shares now but will buy more after split.

[swampman46]

I think I will buy. He said the stock will split this coming Monday! I know that sometimes a stock will dip a bit right after a split...not sure if I can be that patient

["W"]

Originally Posted by swampman46

I think I will buy. He said the stock will split this coming Monday! I know that sometimes a stock will dip a bit right after a split...not sure if I can be that patient

Dip to what ???? You seen the price today ?

I bought in at like 432

[swampman46]

Originally Posted by "W"

Dip to what ???? You seen the price today ?

I bought in at like 432

A small dip won't affect you obviously. I'm talking about someone buying in after the split. Many times there is a 2-3% drop right after...and other times it never looks back.

["W"]

I will say this , buying apple was probably my biggest gut felling ever stock , mainly due to the price

As far as company I have zero worries but did not want to risk all my money I made off of AT&T

Keep reading sites and news about how it was way under priced so I took the risk and it's about to pay 7xs over

[speck-chaser]

I have made some good money buying the options on Apple, 90% of the options I have bought have been calls to 10% puts. 2 big firms in the past couple of weeks have raised their price target to over 700 per share.

[swampman46]

Originally Posted by speck-chaser

2 big firms in the past couple of weeks have raised their price target to over 700 per share.

Well I'm not a stock market guru...but that doesn't sound like a stock that should be on a HOLD. What firms are you refering to?

[speck-chaser]

Goldman Sacs was one, dont remember the other one right off hand. Goldmans price target is 720

[swampman46]

Originally Posted by speck-chaser

Goldman Sacs was one, dont remember the other one right off hand. Goldmans price target is 720

Thanks. Would there be any advantage to getting my broker to buy tomorrow vs waiting til the split price on Monday? There could be alot of buying Monday morning.

[swampman46]

Apple declares .47 per share dividend today.

[Reggoh]

$127.60 this morning... X7 = $893.20 (pre split number)

[BloodKnot]

Still an undervalued stock...

[swampman46]

A company with good news after good news after good news-analysts keep saying it should be closer to 200, but can't really explain why it's not.

[southern151]

UPDATE: Apple, Twitter throw their weight around in Confederate flag debateFont size: A | A | A
4:00 PM ET 6/23/15 | MarketWatch
By David Weidner, MarketWatch

Silicon Valley has its say in South Carolina politics, a dangerous precedent

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley is finding out fast what happens when the values of local constituencies go up against the interests of one of the nation's most powerful industries: Silicon Valley.

The people who brought you the sharing economy threaten to play keep away.

That's why Haley, on Monday, relented to pressure (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sou...lag-2015-06-22) and asked legislators to remove the Confederate flag from the state capitol grounds. The capitulation came not long after Haley said the flag wasn't controversial in the state, nor had it affected her efforts to bring business and jobs to South Carolina.

Less than a year ago, Haley said (https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=119&v=x5yic_c1FME) she "spent a lot of my days on the phones with CEOs and recruiting jobs to this state. I can honestly say I have not had one conversation with a single CEO about the Confederate flag."

On Monday, Haley said (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sou...s-2015-06-22): "We are not going to allow this symbol to divide us any longer. The fact that people are choosing to use it as a sign of hate is something we cannot stand."

As far as flip-flops go, Haley's was the political equivalent of a Cirque du Soleil finale.

It was also evidence that we are living in a new age of corporate activism. Chief executives, led by Silicon Valley technology elites, are speaking out and issuing threats. Change your laws, they argue, or face the consequences: public shaming, withholding of investment.

Marc Benioff, chief executive of San Francisco-based Salesforce.com (CRM), was one of the first to apply the pressure in a Twitter message Saturday.

"I agree @MittRomney: Take down the #ConfederateFlag at the SC Capitol. To many, it is a symbol of racial hatred. Remove to honor victims," he wrote.

(https://twitter.com/Benioff/status/612347847577616384)

Apple Inc. (AAPL) Chief Executive Tim Cook added to the chorus Sunday: "My thoughts are with the victim's families in SC. Let us honor their lives by eradicating racism & removing the symbols & words that feed it."

(https://twitter.com/tim_cook/status/612703567082688513)

Others including Jack Dorsey, interim CEO of Twitter Inc. (TWTR), Howard Schultz of Starbucks Corp. (SBUX), and Satya Nadella, chief executive of Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) echoed the growing sentiment and calls for Haley and her state's legislators to take down the flag.

Haley need only to look at the backlash against Indiana and Arkansas legislatures in April when so-called "religious freedom" laws, which some argue violate civil rights of the LGBT communities, were either passed or drafted. The pressure in that controversy was ignited by Silicon Valley, especially Cook, and eventually fueled by non-technology companies, (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...l-in-arkansas/) including Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) and Marriott International (MAR). Even Berkshire Hathaway Inc.'s (BRKA) Warren Buffett went on the record, forcefully (http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/31/news...law/index.html).

By the time Indiana modified the law, several companies, including Angie's List Inc. (ANGI) were threatening to scrap investment plans there.

Corporate social activism didn't start in 2015, but the ease and low cost of communicating on social media and the Valley's impulse to challenge conventional approaches to business almost require CEOs to enter the debate these days. Taking a stand can be a minefield and open companies up to customer backlash (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wil...nts-2015-04-02). But they also bring additional loyalty among customers who share the belief and, let's face it, cheap advertising.

Haley quickly buckled in the face of the new reality. When it comes to civil rights and hate speech, most of us probably welcome corporate activism. Then again, it should also make us feel uneasy to see CEOs influencing public officials on issues that don't have direct impact on the businesses they run.

Many of us probably are pleased the rebel flag and Haley were no match for Silicon Valley's assault. But what happens when the Valley is on the wrong side of your local issue? What happens when the Apple logo and the Starbucks siren are more powerful than the stars and bars?

-David Weidner; 415-439-6400; AskNewswires@dowjones.com

> Dow Jones Newswires

June 23, 2015 16:00 ET (20:00 GMT)

Copyright (c) 2015 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

[MathGeek]

Corporations who leverage their money and influence to promote politically correct social agendas are not sound investments in the long run, especially when these social agendas are inherently evil by promoting perversion and depriving good people the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Would you own stock in a company that actively worked against the 2nd amendment?

Then why own stock in a company that is actively working against the 1st?

[swampman46]

Well, I didn't read all the links posted. Nor did I see where AAPL is "actively" working against the 1st and 2nd ammendment. When I think of actively, I think of obama administration, Bloomberg, Pelosi, and the bi*** in CA that I can't think of her name right now. Don't forget, Walmart and others have opted to remove all Rebel flags etc. from their stores. Gonna stop doing business there? We now live in a PC world, unfortunately, where businesses will quickly opt out to keep from being hammered by the media. That, is all very clear.

[southern151]

Originally Posted by swampman46

Well, I didn't read all the links posted. Nor did I see where AAPL is "actively" working against the 1st and 2nd ammendment. When I think of actively, I think of obama administration, Bloomberg, Pelosi, and the bi*** in CA that I can't think of her name right now. Don't forget, Walmart and others have opted to remove all Rebel flags etc. from their stores. Gonna stop doing business there?

Apple Inc. (AAPL) Chief Executive Tim Cook added to the chorus Sunday: "My thoughts are with the victim's families in SC. Let us honor their lives by eradicating racism & removing the symbols & words that feed it."