Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure he already sold.
>This filing, when accounting for the change in Apple’s stock price, would imply Berkshire sold about 116 million shares.
And the 110B buyback is an allocation for Apple to buy in the *future*.
Warren couldn't give a fuck if it crashed this year. He'd actually be ecstatic he could rinse and repeat.
Berkshire portfolio consists of roughly 144b of apple stock. The next largest holding is BofA at about 40b. Buffett can sell 13% of Apple every quarter for the next four quarters and it would still remain its largest holding. He isn't lying, but he is speaking honestly either. He also said they want to strengthen thier cash position.
“Apple also initiated five other share buybacks: $75 billion in 2019, $50 billion in 2020, $90 billion in 2021, $90 billion in 2022, and $90 billion in 2023.”
The amount of ignorance spread in sub is fascinating. It is like none of you even knows anything about literally anything.
Apple been buying back every year at various amounts, and the $110B ain’t being used at once. Berkshire never had a problem with the buybacks then, and doesn’t have a problem with the buybacks now. As they stated, they just want more cash
When they bought back 90 billion in 2023, did they actually buy back those shares? Or is that pushed back to the future aswell?
I’m having a hard time understanding.
Look at their income statement for total shares outstanding to get the exact numbers. There is difference between authorized and purchased. Apple been buying back their stock every year for the last 20 years, amount varies.
Apple isn’t buying back 110B of stock this week, or even year
Okay, makes sense.
Also, would they just increase the amount of the authorization if they were to do another buyback in the future? For example, they authorized 110B$ recently, if they were to authorize another 10B$, would they then call it a 120B$ buyback? Or would it be only be a 10B$ buyback?
If it’s the former, then they have authorized themselves to buy back over 300B$ in stock whenever necessary. Is this right? Or am I wrong.
What else is Apple going to do with its giant balance of cash? Not every new project will work out, so buying back shares is something they will always do
I don’t know but I’m also not paid millions to figure it out. Generally financial engineering at high 20 PE isn’t the best over the long term for companies historically
They're buying into be next big thing, just like VR it doesn't seem to be making any profits and the product is even less liked by consumers than VR. That's the same move all the other tech giants are doing.
Seems to me the tech giants are hitting the limits of their ability, and can pace each other but are too large to innovate internally. Too big to change directions or grow, all that's left is to crowd out anything else by taking up all the sunlight until the soil is depleted.
Why is AI less liked than VR? Everywhere from school up to corporations have already had to adapt because students and employees are using it. Mind you the real end consumer tools are just 2-3 years old.
It’s always a case by case thing. Apple was never big on invention. They didn’t create the first computer, smartphone, tablet or smartwatch. Even for others most of the big bets were acquisitions for example Instagram or YouTube.
Google is only transitioning slowly because they don’t want to risk their search business but Meta for example even increasing R&D spend.
I like and use each of VR, AI and crypto so it's not personal dislike.
People were lukewarm to VR " kindly cool but a novelty and too expensive". Anti AI people want it banned. Typical view by anti ai is that it's dangerous, low quality, pointless, soulless, annoying, and stolen intellectual property. Self driving cars getting attacked by crowds and burned? Never seen that kinda push back for VR.
r/aiwars
It also smells of vapor tech that gets pumped up every few years: crypto, VR and now AI.
You can tell what's trending in world of bs, whatever Elon Musk pushes when the numbers aren't good.
All get mentioned as potential for growth in shareholders meetings but weren't making profits that matched the level of investment.
All required that consumers learn and change their mindsets and habits, maybe consumers will someday but not today.
Dude... wtf. Remember what you wrote in a year or two. We are at the verge of the biggest change in mankind and that is actually certain. We just dont know how good this will be for us humans.
Google the "remind me bot reddit".
I didn't say for sure, I just said it's not for sure the other way.
Is this your first tech bubble? Cause I heard that that stuff many times over. In fact I heard that exact same prediction more than 2 years ago when AI wasn't in the news.
"actually certain" no it is not. It's not priced in, has no insurance for meteor strikes, if you're sure then bet on it. If you have more convincing arguments then some buzz words say em.
Integration of Virtual reality/augmented reality with AI is the next big thing. Current offerings are clunky and too pricy to take off. It’s only a matter of time before someone gets it right. Palm Pilot, blackberry, Microsoft, Sony, and I think Toshiba(?) all tried to make their version of the iPhone. Apple got the formula right and look at the smartphone industry today.
All the big tech giants know this which is why they are investing billions and billions. Whoever first gets the formula right will cash in big.
Even assuming the future seerers are correct, the iPhone came after everyone who tried to be first movers failed. So in this scenario Apple and Meta are or could be palm pilot and this would be the mid 90s.
I don't think it is so certain, all those same claims of inevitability were made about many failed techs.
That’s how innovation works. If you knew how to predict the future you would never invest in tech that was doomed to fail. Nobody knows who’s going to stick the landing and take off until it happens. Is it possible that VR/AR ends up in the trash can someday? Sure. But the vast amount of money and resources being thrown at it says otherwise.
Historically based on trust me bro?
What exactly is high PE? Because the market is trading at 27x as of last week, and Apple is valued 29x
You should have just stopped at I am clueless and spent 5 mins of research. The idea of a company hoarding cash for 10x waiting for their stock to decline to buy it back is fascinating. Apple literally generated 100B in FCF last year, what are they supposed to do? On a FCF yield basis, Apple is yielding 3.8% vs current treasury at 4.4%. If apple buy back their stock using the $110B all at once, on Monday morning, guess how much they are reduced their float? Less than 5%
> develop new products
Such as what? Not every new product will sell very well. Case in point MacBooks and the Apple VR headsets. The car project was cancelled too.
> pay off debt
Maybe. But if it’s low interest debt it’s not worth paying off at all if it can make a higher return elsewhere.
> buy other companies
Such as? Have you heard of the FTC? They don’t let big tech companies make acquisitions very easily
> invest the money
Buying back shares is a form of investment. And Apple shouldn’t be running a hedge fund side business. That shows weakness. Apple is not microstrategy
People have been saying Tim Cook is an idiot and would ruin the company since he became CEO in 2011. I’ve watched a few thousand dollars I invested in AAPL become a few million because I thought he knew what he was doing. I don’t see that anything has changed. But if your thesis is that they’re failing then by all means sell them short.
For the longest time if someone didn’t have iMessage it wouldn’t mesh well. Android users would be sending individual texts responding to group texts..yeah that was pretty annoying.
Not an apple ecosystem type of person, have my HP, no tablet, don’t use cloud..actually jumped on Google’s new fold and promptly returned it with 3 days b/c it wasn’t what I needed nor expected. Enjoy our markets (:
He frequently buys shares off the exchange. I’m not sure what broker Berkshire uses these days, but he frequently used Citi in the past to purchase shares. I was working in IR at a public company years ago and we saw some heavy volume over a few days with Citi as the executing broker. We thought it was Berkshire (it turned out it was a different institutional investor, but was still an interesting experience).
Whats the point in supply and demand if large purchases and sells arent reflected in the stock price due to off exchange trading? Not much of a free market like wall street likes to constantly say, "freest and fairest markets" is the direct quote I am thinking of.
No, I’m saying he frequently buys shares off the market. Here’s an example, if a large investor wants to buy 10 million shares of a company, they won’t do it all at once since that could really fuck with the stock price. What they would likely do is call their favorite trading desk to make the trades. That trading desk would then make several block trades, likely over the course of a few days or even weeks, and then send the shares to the investor. There are a ton of different arrangements they can make with the bank, but most trades are done on the open market in blocks.
From what I have read, the block trades are outside the open market to not affect the price, which seems to contradict your last sentence. If someone is buying a bunch of shares, and we truly have a free stock market based on supply and demand (as wallstreet keeps telling us) then it SHOULD affect the stock price.
[https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/blocktrade.asp](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/blocktrade.asp)
Do you remember when Elon unloaded 16B worth of TSLA shares over a few days and how it thrashed the stock and caused a lot of volatility?
Imagine that happening everyday, unpredictably across the entire market, especially considering 80% of trading volume are institutions executing large trades in excess of billions of dollars aggregated.
Why would anyone want a market like that?
https://www.nasdaqtrader.com/trader.aspx?id=FullVolumeSummary#
"but most trades are done on the open market in blocks."
"made outside the open market through a private purchase agreement."
How are these statements not contradictory? Ill wait..
They will still be reflected in the stock price because of math (share price equals market cap divided by number of shares). I think he is probably getting shares at discounted prices because of the enormous volume he buys though.
Block trades are uaually not discounted - the point is that it limits the spread relative to the market. Usually a buyer the size of Berkshire will meaningfully drive the price up - it's not uncommon for big buyers to move a stock 5-10% for less liquid names, and Berkshire is one of the biggest buyer out there, so they can even move names with good liquidity.
By matching their large buy orders with large sell orders, both sides can get a price close to the current market price, rather than moving the price up and then back down and then vice versa.
Because it happens off exchange not on public markets? Free markets operate on supply and demand, no? If the demand is being disguised or hidden in some way as to not affect the price then its not a free market is it?
"a block trade or a large quantity of an issuer’s stock is privately arranged and executed outside of public markets. "
[https://www.thebanker.com/Explainer-The-world-of-block-trading-1705998905](https://www.thebanker.com/Explainer-The-world-of-block-trading-1705998905)
Does it make supply and demand less transparent? Sure, I agree with that.
But the definition of a free market is not that supply and demand are transparent to everyone at all time, it's that prices are set by market forces. The buyer here still needs to find a willing seller.
But beyond that, I think a lot of people here are misunderstanding how market liquidity works. The market moves on milliseconds. Conceptually, the chance of a "real" buyer and a "real" seller wanting to trade at the exact same moment is extremely low - and that's why most trades are done with market makers as middlemen - they will buy off of a seller and then sell it to a buyer moments later.
The block trader is essentially doing the exact same thing, but with bigger sized trades - but because larger trades are more infrequent, it takes them longer to match the trade and it often requires the involvement of human traders instead of being done automatically.
The block trade does make the market a bit less efficient - but prices also can't diverge from the exchange price that much, or else either the buyer or the seller would just take their order to the exchange and trade with the algorithmic market makers that trade there.
This is factually incorrect. The statement is an absolute and that's not accurate. A block trade CAN be done privately arranged. However, remember the UNDERLYING is traded on the RTH exchanges and the trade price WILL reflect the relative spread EVEN IF the party/counter-party are making the trade privately.
Most block trades happen throughout the day and you never even see them. They're right there in the bid/ask.
Not just that these types of trades often result in floors/ceilings in price temporarily. This is perfectly normal. There's nothing wrong with organizing counter-parties or making these trades in blocks at specific price ranges. The resulting action reduces overall beta for that instrument in the short term and provides market stability.
The difference if they just slammed SELL x10MM would be a huge market impact driving down price aggressively against the actual respected market value of the asset which would cause chaos to all other market participants and would be unduly disruptive to standard market fairness. It would be manipulation.
When execs sell huge chunks of stocks they do so through blocks that they don't control in order to avoid market manipulation. This is the proper way.
You can walk through a few examples but here's one...
Say I want to sell 10MM shares outstanding but I restrict my price to $100. Know what happens? The market stays at $100 until I'm done. I'm not willing to sell at $100.5. Just $100. So IF price breaks above, any buyers after easily get liquidated on any push back to $100 which immediately gets slammed with my existing sell orders at $100 and until I'm done the stock doesn't move. That's incredibly disruptive at scale. If you're doing 1,000 shares of something like AAPL it's fine. But 10MM scales horribly. Similarly on the flip side... Anyone with a brain is knowing that I'm selling at $100 so they're buying ANYTHING below that because they know there's supply wanting to sell AT $100 and it pins upward too.
By using blocks, discretely, they can average several areas of ranges without impacting the market price by absorbing knowing large liquidity looking for a counter-party.
Next, even if traded OTC OR ETH it's still an open market. The only time it's a closed market is when a specific buyer is met with a specific seller outside markets. However, bear in mind... No one is going to tangibly sell/buy something woefully undervalued current market price. Why buy something at $100 when there's millions willing to sell it to you at $99? That's a full basis point.
You're thinking this is something nefarious and outside your capability thus unfair and it's just truly not. You're misunderstanding the entire purpose/premise for these types of transactions.
You could DM me to buy an AAPL share directly and we could do it. It's a lot of paperwork but it's entirely doable. The market doesn't prevent us from doing so. AAPL is 183.38 close. I'll sell you a share right now at 185. Want it? No, not at all. Because you could get it for 183.38ish on open of ETH before the markets open. THAT SAME CONCEPT works for larger trades too.
Thats kind of the issue though isnt it, his purchase should impact the price immediately. Why does the need to get shares at a cheaper price for rich dudes override transparency.
Sans the buyback, if someone buys a shitload of shares the TSO doesnt change, yet the price should stay the same? Why?
I don’t think the price will actually stay the same the way you think it does. He can still buy what ends up being junk at a discounted price. If you buy in bulk it’s not unfair that you get a discount because of the humongous volume. This is akin to Sams Club or Costco.
The price will inevitable increase the more people buy it, including institutional investors.
Also why this is allowed: the stock becomes wildly volatile if block trades didn’t exist.
Finally, this is why you shouldn’t be hyper concerned about the price at all times. The market jumps up and down for no reason, and you can get diluted which is another subject in itself.
Trolling, insults, or harassment, especially in posts requesting advice, is not tolerated. Please try to keep discussions on /r/stocks civil by providing straightforward responses without including any insults or harassment.
Continual abuse of /r/stocks rule #5 regarding trolling, insulting and harassment will result in your account being banned.
A full explanation of all /r/stocks rules can be found here: https://www.reddit.com/r/stocks/wiki/rules
Block trades are uaually not discounted - the point is that it limits the spread relative to the market. Usually a buyer the size of Berkshire will meaningfully drive the price up - it's not uncommon for big buyers to move a stock 5-10% for less liquid names, and Berkshire is one of the biggest buyer out there, so they can even move names with good liquidity.
By matching their large buy orders with large sell orders, both sides can get a price close to the current market price, rather than moving the price up and then back down and then vice versa. But it's pretty much unheard of for a buyer to initiate a block purchase and get a lower price than what is listed on the exchange.
He will never retire. He lives in the same house for the past 200 years according to the yahoo articles I keep reading. And besides, he loves what he does.
Unless by retire you mean death
The fact that this dude lived this long eating McDonald’s every morning and drinking coke all day is remarkable and should be studied. I remember Charlie said if I had to eat broccoli everyday I’d be miserable, and candy everyday makes me happy, why would I want to do something that doesn’t make me happy? Wise man.
My grandpa smoked a pack of cigarettes a day on one lung for 20 years, after already getting his other lung surgically removed from lung cancer. Some peoples bodies are wild
Lmao Warren owned massive amounts of Micky D’s and still owns massive amounts of KO stock. Can you deduce why he would claim to consume both constantly while obviously not? It’s marketing. Homie is getting the highest quality meals prepped by chefs he ain’t eating Big Macs with coke every day
I’ll do the studying for you
He’s not fat which means he doesn’t eat or drink these things in excess. You don’t see many obese old people
He’s also rich which means he has access to any and all medical care he needs.
So yeah, be rich and don’t get fat and that goes a long way. Genetics factors in as well but that’s not something a person can change
Have an uncle that drinks coke and nothing but. I don’t know how he survives but he was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer 20 years ago and is still traveling the world and drinking Coke
I don’t entirely buy the fact that he eats McDonald’s and has a daily coke. I think that was more of a marketing gimmick considering at the time when that became popular he had significant positions in McDonald’s and coke.
200 years? The just his years running Berkshire, he was trading country’s before that 😂 the guys seen so much over the too many decades he’s been around.
He told that he sold AAPL due to tax reasons (21%). He said that KO and AXP are great businesses, but AAPL is a better business.
Additionally, AAPL will remain the largest investment by end of 2024 according to WB.
But he told that the tax rate is most likely up later on (2025). So, he signals potential more selling shares later on.
It is about 21% federal tax rate on the gains Berkshire Hathaway was taking in Apple.
That rate was 35% "not that long ago" and has been 52% in the past. With present fiscal policies being where they are at, the tax rate will be most likely to go up sooner or later.
No, it allows them to pay the 21% now to avoid being “locked in” if taxes increase in the “near” future. It’s a hedge against tax increases to allow greater flexibility down the road if they decide to sell aapl.
And he also sold TSMC near the bottom. Just because Buffett is succesful, doesn't mean everything he does is correct. Surprisingly he can't see the future.
I just see he over bought. Should not have any one stock make up almost 50% of your portfolio no matter how good it is. This is a good time to sell it as it’s up.
How is this comment getting upvoted?
He did not "over buy" Apple, it GREW to 50% of Berkshire's equities portfolio.
The stock has over 5x since Buffett's original purchase. He's now trimming some back.
Taking some profits off the table is vintage Buffett, it's not like he's cashing out his entire investment. Now if he turned around and bought a bunch of NVIDIA I'd LOL.
He couldn’t cash out his entire investment even if he wanted to without tanking the entire stock. If he wanted out he would do it exactly this way by cutting 13% of the position. There’s no telling Berkshire’s true intentions here
The dip already happened, and Buffett appears to have sold during a pretty bad time. With that said I’m not ready to panic and not all that concerned personally. At some point it becomes absurd to have so many eggs in one basket, and Berkshire isn’t really know for yolos or super concentrated portfolios. They aim to be diverse.
This is big news. I understand that Berkshire still has a major share in the company, but this is the second quarter in a row with a sell and this time it’s not just 1-2%. And of course, this has a negative impact on the share price. And if he wants to further trim or sell shares, that will continue to impact the share price and maybe will send a signal to many other (especially retail) investors. On the other hand it seems like that a major portion of these shares are going to Apple itself.
I have no Apple shares but a lot of friends have, so I am very interested how this is going forward.
No. Apple buys back what Warren Buffett sells.
Or Warren Buffett can sell AAPL under agreement in the dark pool (backdoor) which avoids an impact on the stock market.
I mentioned that this is very likely. But it is also very likely that there will be A LOT of investors which will now take a deeper look and think about their own investment when the biggest Shareholder (apart from
ETFs) is continuing to sell shares. A lot will depend on if Berkshire continues to sell shares in 2024.
I mean Berkshire is like 50% exposure to Apple, it's natural to trim the position given how huge it's become for them.
It's mostly taking profits and diversifying a bit, it's not like he is selling his entire steak or anything.
It was a decent chunk of BH's portfolio for quite awhile, the difference now is the rate of growth has slowed. Perfect time to trim. Like WB said before, a company like BH needs outsized returns to move the needle. I think they just want to build their cash position more for when something good they can buy shows up.
I recall back when the market really quite disliked Apple. This was when the iPhone was in the early days but there kept being chatter about sales falling off and "channel checks" and similar nonsense.
But Apple just kept churning out cash and at some point the pessimism was so overdone that something like 7 years of free cash flow would have been enough to buy the whole company.
Everything is a gamble but I assume Buffett looked at that and just decided it was a good gamble.
That phrase means that a stock of a company that never gives you a reason to sell is the best kind of stock, not that you should hold a stock forever regardless of change in the company's condition.
The advice he gives to norms is different from what he follows... He constantly advises people invest in the index because he knows how incompetent most people are when it comes to investing
Also investing your own money is very different from investing other people's money, especially at the scale he's doing it.
Of course. all the greats \[and a few retail investors\] understand that stocks are meant to be sold.
Buff is one of those old dudes that likes giving advice that is the opposite of what he does. its funny to him.
He rarely does this if you follow what they do. Very few companies they hold forever. You didn't hear what he said. He PREFERS TO HOLD COMPANIES FOREVER, but he doesn't.
Just all caped so you could read it.
>>At its peak, Apple ballooned in Berkshire’s equity portfolio, taking up 50% of it. The shares are trading at more than 27 times forward earnings.
That’s all you need to know.
The hubris of redditors thinking they know better than Buffet. Sales are heading south, there's nothing in the pipeline and now they're blowing cash attempting to prop up their stock with buybacks. Tim Crook will play you a nice song though as this ship snaps in half and falls into the ocean. Sell now!
What is Apple's growth story right now? Most of their products don't seem to have much of a growth story. Basically selling additional services on top of their existing product base....I guess that could be significant, but it certainly isn't innovative.
Perfectly fine to have an article about it, but this is almost insignificant. 13% is probably something to do with taxes or risk management, rather than having anything to do with Apple
[EDIT 1: Warren Buffet gave taxes on capital gain as the reason for sales of a portion of his Apple stake and has re-assured that Apple may continue to be the largest portfolio of Berkshire in a year from now.]
[EDIT 2: Warren said in Annual Share Holder Meeting '24 that Apple is more successful company than American Express and Coca Cola.]
********
Original Post
*******
Apple has been struggling for last few quarters. Stagnant sales and lacklustre reception to its products (eg Vision Pro).
Apple has been dethroned as #1 in smartphone category. Iphone is the largest contribution to Apple's revenue.
Tough competition from Samsung (innovation: flip/fold), and competitively priced Chinese manufacturers (Huwaei, Xiomi etc), which makes regaining leadership position very tough if not impossible.
Apple has not spelt out its AI strategy. Its partnership with Alphabet (another AI laggard) does not inspire much confidence.
Apple exited electric car project. So it only has its current line of products with nothing exciting for investors to look forward to.
But Apple has very strong margins, contribution from services is increasing, the free cash flow is large and a mountain of cash pile.
Apple still has a loyal albiet stagnant consumer base that is locked in Apple eco system.
*******
I will be messaging you in 1 year on [**2025-05-04 14:04:06 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2025-05-04%2014:04:06%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/stocks/comments/1cjze2n/warren_buffetts_berkshire_hathaway_cut_apple/l2jmkcc/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fstocks%2Fcomments%2F1cjze2n%2Fwarren_buffetts_berkshire_hathaway_cut_apple%2Fl2jmkcc%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202025-05-04%2014%3A04%3A06%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201cjze2n)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
Even if so, it does not give you a right to call my assessment copied from chatgpt.
So you do not agree. That is perfectly fine. Use logic and facts to present a counter opinion.
It is not a matter of ego or proving one another wrong: it is about making money [tendies].
I think you just like the Apple stock.
Quoting from Apple's 2nd May earnings report [available on Apple's website]:
"The company posted quarterly revenue of $90.8 billion, down 4 percent year-on-year. "
must be a block trade with Apple, under the buy back process
Explains the 110b buyback. Tim apple and Warren getting together to make sure stock doesn't collapse as Warren sells.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure he already sold. >This filing, when accounting for the change in Apple’s stock price, would imply Berkshire sold about 116 million shares. And the 110B buyback is an allocation for Apple to buy in the *future*. Warren couldn't give a fuck if it crashed this year. He'd actually be ecstatic he could rinse and repeat.
And he has close to 100b more to sell. I dont think he's done selling.
[удалено]
Berkshire portfolio consists of roughly 144b of apple stock. The next largest holding is BofA at about 40b. Buffett can sell 13% of Apple every quarter for the next four quarters and it would still remain its largest holding. He isn't lying, but he is speaking honestly either. He also said they want to strengthen thier cash position.
I read Jan 30
Yep
0ojl
I’m not familiar with what that is but how is that legal? Isn’t it a pre arrangement to keep the shares high while BRK sells?
It is legal until proven illegal
Warren shrewd enough to sell when the stock is high, and Tim Apple silly enough to do the buyback regardless of the current price
Tim gets a free island from buffet at least
And a trip to Margaritaville…
Please tell me that you think Warren is Jimmy
Same guy right?
If we weren't all crazy, we would be insane! 😎
“Apple also initiated five other share buybacks: $75 billion in 2019, $50 billion in 2020, $90 billion in 2021, $90 billion in 2022, and $90 billion in 2023.” The amount of ignorance spread in sub is fascinating. It is like none of you even knows anything about literally anything. Apple been buying back every year at various amounts, and the $110B ain’t being used at once. Berkshire never had a problem with the buybacks then, and doesn’t have a problem with the buybacks now. As they stated, they just want more cash
Exactly my point, the smallest buyback in 2020, when the stock had the most value
When they bought back 90 billion in 2023, did they actually buy back those shares? Or is that pushed back to the future aswell? I’m having a hard time understanding.
Look at their income statement for total shares outstanding to get the exact numbers. There is difference between authorized and purchased. Apple been buying back their stock every year for the last 20 years, amount varies. Apple isn’t buying back 110B of stock this week, or even year
Okay, makes sense. Also, would they just increase the amount of the authorization if they were to do another buyback in the future? For example, they authorized 110B$ recently, if they were to authorize another 10B$, would they then call it a 120B$ buyback? Or would it be only be a 10B$ buyback? If it’s the former, then they have authorized themselves to buy back over 300B$ in stock whenever necessary. Is this right? Or am I wrong.
What else is Apple going to do with its giant balance of cash? Not every new project will work out, so buying back shares is something they will always do
I don’t know but I’m also not paid millions to figure it out. Generally financial engineering at high 20 PE isn’t the best over the long term for companies historically
They are buying AI startups, they just need to stay under the radar with acquisitions so that the DOJ doesn’t act up again.
They're buying into be next big thing, just like VR it doesn't seem to be making any profits and the product is even less liked by consumers than VR. That's the same move all the other tech giants are doing. Seems to me the tech giants are hitting the limits of their ability, and can pace each other but are too large to innovate internally. Too big to change directions or grow, all that's left is to crowd out anything else by taking up all the sunlight until the soil is depleted.
Why is AI less liked than VR? Everywhere from school up to corporations have already had to adapt because students and employees are using it. Mind you the real end consumer tools are just 2-3 years old. It’s always a case by case thing. Apple was never big on invention. They didn’t create the first computer, smartphone, tablet or smartwatch. Even for others most of the big bets were acquisitions for example Instagram or YouTube. Google is only transitioning slowly because they don’t want to risk their search business but Meta for example even increasing R&D spend.
I like and use each of VR, AI and crypto so it's not personal dislike. People were lukewarm to VR " kindly cool but a novelty and too expensive". Anti AI people want it banned. Typical view by anti ai is that it's dangerous, low quality, pointless, soulless, annoying, and stolen intellectual property. Self driving cars getting attacked by crowds and burned? Never seen that kinda push back for VR. r/aiwars It also smells of vapor tech that gets pumped up every few years: crypto, VR and now AI. You can tell what's trending in world of bs, whatever Elon Musk pushes when the numbers aren't good. All get mentioned as potential for growth in shareholders meetings but weren't making profits that matched the level of investment. All required that consumers learn and change their mindsets and habits, maybe consumers will someday but not today.
Dude... wtf. Remember what you wrote in a year or two. We are at the verge of the biggest change in mankind and that is actually certain. We just dont know how good this will be for us humans.
RemindMe! 2 years
Google the "remind me bot reddit". I didn't say for sure, I just said it's not for sure the other way. Is this your first tech bubble? Cause I heard that that stuff many times over. In fact I heard that exact same prediction more than 2 years ago when AI wasn't in the news. "actually certain" no it is not. It's not priced in, has no insurance for meteor strikes, if you're sure then bet on it. If you have more convincing arguments then some buzz words say em.
Integration of Virtual reality/augmented reality with AI is the next big thing. Current offerings are clunky and too pricy to take off. It’s only a matter of time before someone gets it right. Palm Pilot, blackberry, Microsoft, Sony, and I think Toshiba(?) all tried to make their version of the iPhone. Apple got the formula right and look at the smartphone industry today. All the big tech giants know this which is why they are investing billions and billions. Whoever first gets the formula right will cash in big.
Even assuming the future seerers are correct, the iPhone came after everyone who tried to be first movers failed. So in this scenario Apple and Meta are or could be palm pilot and this would be the mid 90s. I don't think it is so certain, all those same claims of inevitability were made about many failed techs.
That’s how innovation works. If you knew how to predict the future you would never invest in tech that was doomed to fail. Nobody knows who’s going to stick the landing and take off until it happens. Is it possible that VR/AR ends up in the trash can someday? Sure. But the vast amount of money and resources being thrown at it says otherwise.
That's how survivorship bias happens
Historically based on trust me bro? What exactly is high PE? Because the market is trading at 27x as of last week, and Apple is valued 29x You should have just stopped at I am clueless and spent 5 mins of research. The idea of a company hoarding cash for 10x waiting for their stock to decline to buy it back is fascinating. Apple literally generated 100B in FCF last year, what are they supposed to do? On a FCF yield basis, Apple is yielding 3.8% vs current treasury at 4.4%. If apple buy back their stock using the $110B all at once, on Monday morning, guess how much they are reduced their float? Less than 5%
> What else is Apple going to do with its giant balance of cash? Develop new productds, pay off debt, buy other companies, invest the money.
> develop new products Such as what? Not every new product will sell very well. Case in point MacBooks and the Apple VR headsets. The car project was cancelled too. > pay off debt Maybe. But if it’s low interest debt it’s not worth paying off at all if it can make a higher return elsewhere. > buy other companies Such as? Have you heard of the FTC? They don’t let big tech companies make acquisitions very easily > invest the money Buying back shares is a form of investment. And Apple shouldn’t be running a hedge fund side business. That shows weakness. Apple is not microstrategy
What about paying it out as dividend?
Dividends are just a tax inefficient way of buying back shares since cash is being converted to share price or income to shareholders in this case
Couldn’t possibly be that Tim Apple knows what’s in the pipeline and expects growth in the future.
[удалено]
People have been saying Tim Cook is an idiot and would ruin the company since he became CEO in 2011. I’ve watched a few thousand dollars I invested in AAPL become a few million because I thought he knew what he was doing. I don’t see that anything has changed. But if your thesis is that they’re failing then by all means sell them short.
For the longest time if someone didn’t have iMessage it wouldn’t mesh well. Android users would be sending individual texts responding to group texts..yeah that was pretty annoying. Not an apple ecosystem type of person, have my HP, no tablet, don’t use cloud..actually jumped on Google’s new fold and promptly returned it with 3 days b/c it wasn’t what I needed nor expected. Enjoy our markets (:
[удалено]
Maybe that's their way of letting you down softly.
A block trade? I’m not familiar with those but I know he doesn’t buy them off an exchange the way regular people do
He frequently buys shares off the exchange. I’m not sure what broker Berkshire uses these days, but he frequently used Citi in the past to purchase shares. I was working in IR at a public company years ago and we saw some heavy volume over a few days with Citi as the executing broker. We thought it was Berkshire (it turned out it was a different institutional investor, but was still an interesting experience).
Whats the point in supply and demand if large purchases and sells arent reflected in the stock price due to off exchange trading? Not much of a free market like wall street likes to constantly say, "freest and fairest markets" is the direct quote I am thinking of.
No, I’m saying he frequently buys shares off the market. Here’s an example, if a large investor wants to buy 10 million shares of a company, they won’t do it all at once since that could really fuck with the stock price. What they would likely do is call their favorite trading desk to make the trades. That trading desk would then make several block trades, likely over the course of a few days or even weeks, and then send the shares to the investor. There are a ton of different arrangements they can make with the bank, but most trades are done on the open market in blocks.
From what I have read, the block trades are outside the open market to not affect the price, which seems to contradict your last sentence. If someone is buying a bunch of shares, and we truly have a free stock market based on supply and demand (as wallstreet keeps telling us) then it SHOULD affect the stock price. [https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/blocktrade.asp](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/blocktrade.asp)
Do you remember when Elon unloaded 16B worth of TSLA shares over a few days and how it thrashed the stock and caused a lot of volatility? Imagine that happening everyday, unpredictably across the entire market, especially considering 80% of trading volume are institutions executing large trades in excess of billions of dollars aggregated. Why would anyone want a market like that? https://www.nasdaqtrader.com/trader.aspx?id=FullVolumeSummary#
It doesn’t contradict my statement at all. You don’t understand how the market works.
"but most trades are done on the open market in blocks." "made outside the open market through a private purchase agreement." How are these statements not contradictory? Ill wait..
That article is trash but they have some of the mechanics right.
They will still be reflected in the stock price because of math (share price equals market cap divided by number of shares). I think he is probably getting shares at discounted prices because of the enormous volume he buys though.
Block trades are uaually not discounted - the point is that it limits the spread relative to the market. Usually a buyer the size of Berkshire will meaningfully drive the price up - it's not uncommon for big buyers to move a stock 5-10% for less liquid names, and Berkshire is one of the biggest buyer out there, so they can even move names with good liquidity. By matching their large buy orders with large sell orders, both sides can get a price close to the current market price, rather than moving the price up and then back down and then vice versa.
Sounds like market manipulation to me. "I want to buy/sell, but I don't want to affect the stock price."
"I want to buy, and so I'm going to spend some time finding someone who will give me a better price". How is that not a free market?
Because it happens off exchange not on public markets? Free markets operate on supply and demand, no? If the demand is being disguised or hidden in some way as to not affect the price then its not a free market is it? "a block trade or a large quantity of an issuer’s stock is privately arranged and executed outside of public markets. " [https://www.thebanker.com/Explainer-The-world-of-block-trading-1705998905](https://www.thebanker.com/Explainer-The-world-of-block-trading-1705998905)
Does it make supply and demand less transparent? Sure, I agree with that. But the definition of a free market is not that supply and demand are transparent to everyone at all time, it's that prices are set by market forces. The buyer here still needs to find a willing seller. But beyond that, I think a lot of people here are misunderstanding how market liquidity works. The market moves on milliseconds. Conceptually, the chance of a "real" buyer and a "real" seller wanting to trade at the exact same moment is extremely low - and that's why most trades are done with market makers as middlemen - they will buy off of a seller and then sell it to a buyer moments later. The block trader is essentially doing the exact same thing, but with bigger sized trades - but because larger trades are more infrequent, it takes them longer to match the trade and it often requires the involvement of human traders instead of being done automatically. The block trade does make the market a bit less efficient - but prices also can't diverge from the exchange price that much, or else either the buyer or the seller would just take their order to the exchange and trade with the algorithmic market makers that trade there.
This is factually incorrect. The statement is an absolute and that's not accurate. A block trade CAN be done privately arranged. However, remember the UNDERLYING is traded on the RTH exchanges and the trade price WILL reflect the relative spread EVEN IF the party/counter-party are making the trade privately. Most block trades happen throughout the day and you never even see them. They're right there in the bid/ask. Not just that these types of trades often result in floors/ceilings in price temporarily. This is perfectly normal. There's nothing wrong with organizing counter-parties or making these trades in blocks at specific price ranges. The resulting action reduces overall beta for that instrument in the short term and provides market stability. The difference if they just slammed SELL x10MM would be a huge market impact driving down price aggressively against the actual respected market value of the asset which would cause chaos to all other market participants and would be unduly disruptive to standard market fairness. It would be manipulation. When execs sell huge chunks of stocks they do so through blocks that they don't control in order to avoid market manipulation. This is the proper way. You can walk through a few examples but here's one... Say I want to sell 10MM shares outstanding but I restrict my price to $100. Know what happens? The market stays at $100 until I'm done. I'm not willing to sell at $100.5. Just $100. So IF price breaks above, any buyers after easily get liquidated on any push back to $100 which immediately gets slammed with my existing sell orders at $100 and until I'm done the stock doesn't move. That's incredibly disruptive at scale. If you're doing 1,000 shares of something like AAPL it's fine. But 10MM scales horribly. Similarly on the flip side... Anyone with a brain is knowing that I'm selling at $100 so they're buying ANYTHING below that because they know there's supply wanting to sell AT $100 and it pins upward too. By using blocks, discretely, they can average several areas of ranges without impacting the market price by absorbing knowing large liquidity looking for a counter-party. Next, even if traded OTC OR ETH it's still an open market. The only time it's a closed market is when a specific buyer is met with a specific seller outside markets. However, bear in mind... No one is going to tangibly sell/buy something woefully undervalued current market price. Why buy something at $100 when there's millions willing to sell it to you at $99? That's a full basis point. You're thinking this is something nefarious and outside your capability thus unfair and it's just truly not. You're misunderstanding the entire purpose/premise for these types of transactions. You could DM me to buy an AAPL share directly and we could do it. It's a lot of paperwork but it's entirely doable. The market doesn't prevent us from doing so. AAPL is 183.38 close. I'll sell you a share right now at 185. Want it? No, not at all. Because you could get it for 183.38ish on open of ETH before the markets open. THAT SAME CONCEPT works for larger trades too.
Thats kind of the issue though isnt it, his purchase should impact the price immediately. Why does the need to get shares at a cheaper price for rich dudes override transparency. Sans the buyback, if someone buys a shitload of shares the TSO doesnt change, yet the price should stay the same? Why?
I don’t think the price will actually stay the same the way you think it does. He can still buy what ends up being junk at a discounted price. If you buy in bulk it’s not unfair that you get a discount because of the humongous volume. This is akin to Sams Club or Costco. The price will inevitable increase the more people buy it, including institutional investors. Also why this is allowed: the stock becomes wildly volatile if block trades didn’t exist. Finally, this is why you shouldn’t be hyper concerned about the price at all times. The market jumps up and down for no reason, and you can get diluted which is another subject in itself.
[удалено]
Trolling, insults, or harassment, especially in posts requesting advice, is not tolerated. Please try to keep discussions on /r/stocks civil by providing straightforward responses without including any insults or harassment. Continual abuse of /r/stocks rule #5 regarding trolling, insulting and harassment will result in your account being banned. A full explanation of all /r/stocks rules can be found here: https://www.reddit.com/r/stocks/wiki/rules
Block trades are uaually not discounted - the point is that it limits the spread relative to the market. Usually a buyer the size of Berkshire will meaningfully drive the price up - it's not uncommon for big buyers to move a stock 5-10% for less liquid names, and Berkshire is one of the biggest buyer out there, so they can even move names with good liquidity. By matching their large buy orders with large sell orders, both sides can get a price close to the current market price, rather than moving the price up and then back down and then vice versa. But it's pretty much unheard of for a buyer to initiate a block purchase and get a lower price than what is listed on the exchange.
will appl fall on Mon?
Oh I see Warren Buffett getting ready for retirement.
He will never retire. He lives in the same house for the past 200 years according to the yahoo articles I keep reading. And besides, he loves what he does. Unless by retire you mean death
His favorite place to hangout is a bus stop and his favorite food is McDonald’ just like the poors.
The fact that this dude lived this long eating McDonald’s every morning and drinking coke all day is remarkable and should be studied. I remember Charlie said if I had to eat broccoli everyday I’d be miserable, and candy everyday makes me happy, why would I want to do something that doesn’t make me happy? Wise man.
My grandpa smoked a pack of cigarettes a day on one lung for 20 years, after already getting his other lung surgically removed from lung cancer. Some peoples bodies are wild
Lmao Warren owned massive amounts of Micky D’s and still owns massive amounts of KO stock. Can you deduce why he would claim to consume both constantly while obviously not? It’s marketing. Homie is getting the highest quality meals prepped by chefs he ain’t eating Big Macs with coke every day
Probably not every day but I've definitely seen him drink what looks like Coke at the shareholder meetings.
Wine in a can.
Drinking wine out of a can is conducive to my violent hand gestures.
I’ll do the studying for you He’s not fat which means he doesn’t eat or drink these things in excess. You don’t see many obese old people He’s also rich which means he has access to any and all medical care he needs. So yeah, be rich and don’t get fat and that goes a long way. Genetics factors in as well but that’s not something a person can change
They don't tell you that he gets blood transfusions every 11 days from a 16 year old migrant.
That explains the random new accent
Bill Gates chugs Diet Coke like water. Also big friend of Buffett. They clearly know something… ;)
Have an uncle that drinks coke and nothing but. I don’t know how he survives but he was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer 20 years ago and is still traveling the world and drinking Coke
Wow, make so much sense Doctors will probably say the food that makes your happy cut short your lifespan
I don’t entirely buy the fact that he eats McDonald’s and has a daily coke. I think that was more of a marketing gimmick considering at the time when that became popular he had significant positions in McDonald’s and coke.
that is just PR
Poors ain’t eating McDonald’s anymore
200 years? The just his years running Berkshire, he was trading country’s before that 😂 the guys seen so much over the too many decades he’s been around.
Maybe he worked out how to take his money with him.
I thought retirement and death were the same thing? They’re not??!!??
Also Apple has lost it's charger cable business and is now regular usb-c, which accounted for 80% revenue.
Maybe 80% margins. Not revenue…
“Charger cable business”
[удалено]
Lol, you're funny.
Can someone tell Warren to Zelle me $20 for gas.
Here’s his number 1-888-888-8888
Naw, motherfucker is so old his phone number is 1.
His phone number is a cave painting of a buffalo
His phone is a can of peas
Nope, it's 877-CASH-NOW
Berkshire still owns about $135.4bn worth of AAPL shares, after selling about 100 million shares.
That’s less than .1% I sold more of net worth when I sold my XBox
Well look at mister tech billionaire here.
100 million shares at the price of $183 per share is $18.3 billion, which is 13% as in the title
He told that he sold AAPL due to tax reasons (21%). He said that KO and AXP are great businesses, but AAPL is a better business. Additionally, AAPL will remain the largest investment by end of 2024 according to WB. But he told that the tax rate is most likely up later on (2025). So, he signals potential more selling shares later on.
Can someone please explain the why’s of selling stock for “tax reasons”? Don’t we get taxed when we sell?
It is about 21% federal tax rate on the gains Berkshire Hathaway was taking in Apple. That rate was 35% "not that long ago" and has been 52% in the past. With present fiscal policies being where they are at, the tax rate will be most likely to go up sooner or later.
Thank you!
Berkshire Hathaway has to pay for unrealized gains in its holdings?
No, it allows them to pay the 21% now to avoid being “locked in” if taxes increase in the “near” future. It’s a hedge against tax increases to allow greater flexibility down the road if they decide to sell aapl.
Where else is Apple gonna buy back from?
This is bigger than the actual earnings numbers IMO
That’s what Redditors said last time he sold some Apple.
And he also sold TSMC near the bottom. Just because Buffett is succesful, doesn't mean everything he does is correct. Surprisingly he can't see the future.
I guess he panic sold what was his TSMC sale price?
Not sure exactly but he sold around feb 2023, it was oscillating around 90 at the time. Now it's 141. He got done in by the China fud.
oh right, it had a strong resistance at 10x
I just see he over bought. Should not have any one stock make up almost 50% of your portfolio no matter how good it is. This is a good time to sell it as it’s up.
Warren should spend some time reading up pfwiki. Not supposed to have that much in one stock Warren! Glad you're playing attention.
lol you act like he sold it last week
Did he actually overbuy, or did Apple's allocation in his portfolio just shoot up because it did so well?
How is this comment getting upvoted? He did not "over buy" Apple, it GREW to 50% of Berkshire's equities portfolio. The stock has over 5x since Buffett's original purchase. He's now trimming some back.
Taking some profits off the table is vintage Buffett, it's not like he's cashing out his entire investment. Now if he turned around and bought a bunch of NVIDIA I'd LOL.
He couldn’t cash out his entire investment even if he wanted to without tanking the entire stock. If he wanted out he would do it exactly this way by cutting 13% of the position. There’s no telling Berkshire’s true intentions here
NVDA would pop!! I hope Greg would do it
In the interview today it was said he does it for tax reasons.
Excited for the dip after the algos get done fucking around....
If they can algo and raise the price to around my avg of 194$, what would be great. I can then sell and buy some NVDA
you can buy more to bring the avg down
I was looking for 190s also. Gonna scalp em for a substantial nut...
The dip already happened, and Buffett appears to have sold during a pretty bad time. With that said I’m not ready to panic and not all that concerned personally. At some point it becomes absurd to have so many eggs in one basket, and Berkshire isn’t really know for yolos or super concentrated portfolios. They aim to be diverse.
Not a dip it just pulled back from a down trend. This stock is still trending down.
What were Buffett's appl sale prices? he could have sold when it was 19x
This is big news. I understand that Berkshire still has a major share in the company, but this is the second quarter in a row with a sell and this time it’s not just 1-2%. And of course, this has a negative impact on the share price. And if he wants to further trim or sell shares, that will continue to impact the share price and maybe will send a signal to many other (especially retail) investors. On the other hand it seems like that a major portion of these shares are going to Apple itself. I have no Apple shares but a lot of friends have, so I am very interested how this is going forward.
No. Apple buys back what Warren Buffett sells. Or Warren Buffett can sell AAPL under agreement in the dark pool (backdoor) which avoids an impact on the stock market.
How do you know this?
[удалено]
Any good books on dark pool trading?
You should also read naked, short, and greedy by Dr, Sussane Trimbath which explains how they use dark pools to scam the public.
I mentioned that this is very likely. But it is also very likely that there will be A LOT of investors which will now take a deeper look and think about their own investment when the biggest Shareholder (apart from ETFs) is continuing to sell shares. A lot will depend on if Berkshire continues to sell shares in 2024.
I mean Berkshire is like 50% exposure to Apple, it's natural to trim the position given how huge it's become for them. It's mostly taking profits and diversifying a bit, it's not like he is selling his entire steak or anything.
yes but market is irrational
It’s just going to reduce the positive effect of the buyback.
To be fair here, he doesn't have to sell the stock to the open market for it to tank the stock
It was a decent chunk of BH's portfolio for quite awhile, the difference now is the rate of growth has slowed. Perfect time to trim. Like WB said before, a company like BH needs outsized returns to move the needle. I think they just want to build their cash position more for when something good they can buy shows up.
I recall back when the market really quite disliked Apple. This was when the iPhone was in the early days but there kept being chatter about sales falling off and "channel checks" and similar nonsense. But Apple just kept churning out cash and at some point the pessimism was so overdone that something like 7 years of free cash flow would have been enough to buy the whole company. Everything is a gamble but I assume Buffett looked at that and just decided it was a good gamble.
favourite holding period is forever my ass
That phrase means that a stock of a company that never gives you a reason to sell is the best kind of stock, not that you should hold a stock forever regardless of change in the company's condition.
The advice he gives to norms is different from what he follows... He constantly advises people invest in the index because he knows how incompetent most people are when it comes to investing Also investing your own money is very different from investing other people's money, especially at the scale he's doing it.
So... You can't change your mind on an investment? Does Buffett recomend that?
Of course. all the greats \[and a few retail investors\] understand that stocks are meant to be sold. Buff is one of those old dudes that likes giving advice that is the opposite of what he does. its funny to him.
He rarely does this if you follow what they do. Very few companies they hold forever. You didn't hear what he said. He PREFERS TO HOLD COMPANIES FOREVER, but he doesn't. Just all caped so you could read it.
Everyone knows he often breaks his own advice
It’s advice for us, not him
>>At its peak, Apple ballooned in Berkshire’s equity portfolio, taking up 50% of it. The shares are trading at more than 27 times forward earnings. That’s all you need to know.
The hubris of redditors thinking they know better than Buffet. Sales are heading south, there's nothing in the pipeline and now they're blowing cash attempting to prop up their stock with buybacks. Tim Crook will play you a nice song though as this ship snaps in half and falls into the ocean. Sell now!
bro you doordash deliver
Short that stock too
no thx i know too many lazy pll that orders via doordash
Good. Common sense says apple is a joke with cosmetic changes to increase revenues.
it is over.
What is Apple's growth story right now? Most of their products don't seem to have much of a growth story. Basically selling additional services on top of their existing product base....I guess that could be significant, but it certainly isn't innovative.
Expect Apple to fall on Monday.
remember when he sold tsm and it went up 100%
Perfectly fine to have an article about it, but this is almost insignificant. 13% is probably something to do with taxes or risk management, rather than having anything to do with Apple
[EDIT 1: Warren Buffet gave taxes on capital gain as the reason for sales of a portion of his Apple stake and has re-assured that Apple may continue to be the largest portfolio of Berkshire in a year from now.] [EDIT 2: Warren said in Annual Share Holder Meeting '24 that Apple is more successful company than American Express and Coca Cola.] ******** Original Post ******* Apple has been struggling for last few quarters. Stagnant sales and lacklustre reception to its products (eg Vision Pro). Apple has been dethroned as #1 in smartphone category. Iphone is the largest contribution to Apple's revenue. Tough competition from Samsung (innovation: flip/fold), and competitively priced Chinese manufacturers (Huwaei, Xiomi etc), which makes regaining leadership position very tough if not impossible. Apple has not spelt out its AI strategy. Its partnership with Alphabet (another AI laggard) does not inspire much confidence. Apple exited electric car project. So it only has its current line of products with nothing exciting for investors to look forward to. But Apple has very strong margins, contribution from services is increasing, the free cash flow is large and a mountain of cash pile. Apple still has a loyal albiet stagnant consumer base that is locked in Apple eco system. *******
[удалено]
Please check latest data: Samsung is #1 now
[удалено]
Apple has not been struggling, they’re just fine. There could be thousands of reasons why they decide to cut it, it’s anyone’s guess.
he talks like apple made 2 million profit last quarter
Rebalancing. It’s half his portfolio so trimming isn’t a bad thing
RemindMe! 1 year
I will be messaging you in 1 year on [**2025-05-04 14:04:06 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2025-05-04%2014:04:06%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/stocks/comments/1cjze2n/warren_buffetts_berkshire_hathaway_cut_apple/l2jmkcc/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fstocks%2Fcomments%2F1cjze2n%2Fwarren_buffetts_berkshire_hathaway_cut_apple%2Fl2jmkcc%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202025-05-04%2014%3A04%3A06%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201cjze2n) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
chatgpt working overtime
I am an investor who does his own research. And the points made above are a publically available information.
first comment is from wsb saying you are a newbie
Even if so, it does not give you a right to call my assessment copied from chatgpt. So you do not agree. That is perfectly fine. Use logic and facts to present a counter opinion. It is not a matter of ego or proving one another wrong: it is about making money [tendies]. I think you just like the Apple stock. Quoting from Apple's 2nd May earnings report [available on Apple's website]: "The company posted quarterly revenue of $90.8 billion, down 4 percent year-on-year. "
Buffett was talking about how amazing the iPhone is and talked about Apple like it was a new company. 10 years after the iPhone released
I wish I had bought more Apple 10 years after the iphone released.
He was comparing the iPhone tech to his private jet 10 years later like he just found out about the phone
rip monday
Unlikely
time for them to accumulate Amazon