>invest for a year and the result is no profit or even worse losses

Don't invest in woke tranny corps?

Bit. Coin.

>invests in trillion dollar mcap corp
>why line no go up?
no risk no reward, simple as

This is why Bitcoin is superior to investing in any company.

Companies have execution risk, they can have bad leadership which make bad decisions like Apple.

Bitcoin does nothing and goes up.

What got me away from stocks and into crypto was a fish in a tank analogy. The fish will grow to its confinement and no more. I see stocks as the biggest fish in their tank. Everyone on Earth has an iPhone. How much more can Apple do?

This would be fine if I were trying to secure wealth with a trickle of passive income. After all Apple isn't going anywhere for a long time. Not so good if I'm trying to grow/create wealth. I needed a small fish in a big tank, and in came crypto.

Getting into the wide space of blackchain is a large learning curve coming from traditional finance. Nobody care about p/e ration, worthless shit gets a bid, there's no earnings report, or even basic trust that the project's word is real. This doesn't exist (as much) in stocks because smart money is in charge, they've built up a portfolio through time to influence the market, and that is why it's more rational overall. Crypto is filled with dumb money cultishly banding together to pump their bags, and bad actors with no regulation stopping them. Eventually, the market will mature to resemble stocks where profit matters, bad actors can just start another project and do it all again, and a few projects will dominate the entire space. The pain now is actually a good sign there is room to grow.

>>60524616
>>60524641

>>60524606 (OP)
don't buy stocks now
wait for the inevitable dump
only people telling you to keep DCAing stocks are fat old boomers who depend on you doing that
simple as

>>60524710
This time is unironically different

>>60524743
It is the longest bull market Bitcoin has seen so far, which is evident from the drawdown chart. Considering alts haven't run yet and there isn't a hint of euphoria in the air (beyond delusional Bitcoiners who think the line will never go down), I have a feeling this cycle will last a little longer than past cycles.

Don't buy companies with triple digit P/E ratios
>But it'll go up forever!
No it won't and a whole lot of retards are gonna figure that out the hard way kek

>>60524606 (OP)
Stop buying overvalued tech stocks priced to become quadrillion dollar companies. Is every last person on earth going to buy a new iPhone every year?

The statistics show the the majority of people either lose money or break even in the stock market. Even people on wall street who do this for a living have a hard time making money. Are you better than them?

>>60524771
>>60524772
AAPL has a PE Ratio of 30, which is not particularly overvalued at all.

iphone sales have been stagnant for years, the court forced them to loosen their grip on app store, they can't participate in enterprise AI because it's not their domain

>>60524710
Bitcoin was not worth $1 in 2023 nigga

>>60524772
So buying stocks below the fair value will guarantee profit after a year?

>>60524777
trips of trvke

Apple will weather the AI bubble pop and come out ahead. It's a solid buy.

>>60524606 (OP)
altcoins don't do anything either

>>60524793
lrn2readAgr4ph

>>60524922
That's literally what the graph says retard

>>60524928
Anon, is this your very first time ever seeing a graph with two y axes?

>>60524931
Explain how it works then wise old man

>>60524946
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=dual+axis+chart

>>60524777

Growth?

>>60524606 (OP)

How about not buying a stock that has a trillion mcap, P/E at 30, and with zero earnings growth for over a year?

Why should apple go up? Because it’s fashionable to buy the mag 7? Let me give you another revelation: TSLA will be down from today in the next year. I wonder if you’d cry about that because it’s really fucking obvious. PLTR is another one.

Stocks go up in anticipation of future earnings growth. Some of them, like NVDA, keep up with those ludicrous expectations, most don’t.

>>60524606 (OP)
Sideways movement is not the thing to be afraid of.
This is going to sound corny, but as far as tech companies are concerned, I look for CEOs with a vision for humanity's future, and an obsessive drive to realize it. Making line go up is not a vision, but a consequence of it.
With all of the abstractions of the stock market, QA, reading charts and tea leaves, we forget what investing is about. It is a way for the rest of us to support the best of us. We're not all geniuses. Not all of us can change the world. What we do is collectively incentivize the few who can, because that benefits humanity as a whole.
Tim Cook is a line-go-up man. Or perhaps worse, he's a line-don't-go-down man, someone who just plays defense. That doesn't mean you can't make money with Apple. You probably will if you hold long enough and DCA your cost basis down. But is that all you're looking for from your investments?

Going to sell all my link. Would it be wiser to buy bitcoin or ETH?

>>60525039
Who's left that's like you describe? Nvidia? ICP for crypto but it ended up being a horrible investment.

Diversification. Are you retarded? By diversifying you average out all of the “company” from the equities and are left with a good appreciation of an economic unit. Bitcoin does this natively, while having no carrying cost, counterparty risk, or enterprise/nation-state risk.

>>60524793
>he missed the generational 1$ bottom in 2023
NGMI

>>60524606 (OP)
you should have sold the second they unveiled their retarded VR headset with the sheboon model

I'd say this a failure in risk management. The stock buyer did not fully realize that AAPL is a stagnating company. A stagnating company is higher risk, there's lower growth potential with a higher chance of shrinking. Could have been avoided by simply looking at EBITDA, and asking "Is this company going to grow, stagnate, or shrink?"

>>60525010
>Growth?
Android still has the majority of the worldwide market, Apple could grow at least 2-3x from here just taking market share from Android, assuming no growth of the smartphone market altogether.

>>60524653
>Everyone on Earth has an iPhone. How much more can Apple do?


The majority of people use Android, and Apple does a somewhat decent job introducing new products and services and integrating them into their product line.

My personal phone is an Android and my work phone is an iPhone, so I'm not an Apple fan but they are sustainable and their is good reason to believe they can still grow and certainly enough to sustain

>>60525077
Only you can answer that. My point was that you need to have a reason to hold a stock other than line go up, because every stock will go down at some point. Or move sideways.
If you believe in the company's mission, then holding on through thick and thin will be easier. Sideways movement on a good company is not a bad thing, it's a window for you to accumulate.
If you can't explain to yourself why you want Apple, then don't hold it.

>>60525252
>The meat of the move.
Let's say they have 80% of the total achievable market saturation. That last 20% is considered growth, but it would only result in a small % growth in the stock. For an investor like you and I, that small % isn't going to be enough. Your best time to buy was when they had 1% of the market, so then you make 80x when they finally get the 80%, and 100x when they hit it fully.

See what I'm saying? That's also why crypto is worth your time over stocks. Even if Chainlink reaches 100% market saturation, the price will keep going with demand. Then you factor in staking, which removes tokens from the floating supply. The upward potential is something we've never seen before.

>>60525244

So why haven’t they? 6 quarters of no growth is excusable because..? If you can’t deliver growth you shouldn’t be trading above a 20 P/E, let alone 30. There are stocks with 15% profit margins at P/Es below 14 yet nobody bats an eye because they don’t have expectations of being “growth stocks”

What’s more plausible is apple slowly losing value going sideways and not being considered a “growth stock” anymore, so a couple years of no real stock gains. See: IBM

>>60525390
>What’s more plausible is apple slowly losing value going sideways and not being considered a “growth stock” anymore, so a couple years of no real stock gains. See: IBM
This is the likely scenario if Apple continues on their current path, I was just explaining their potential growth. Whether they actually take that potential or leave it to rot is a different story and the likelihood of that happening will be priced by speculators (e.g. Apple's PE ratio falls to lower and lower levels as speculators don't believe they will grow).

>>60525401

Like TSLA, it is only held at these valuations because of memes. And passive buyers. Apple gets 20 cents of every dollar that is invested in 401k/retirement plans simply from passive ETF flows

>>60525418
Nay, Apple is slightly overvalued and can fall some 22% before it gets back to fair value, which is very different from TSLA which is very overvalued and can fall some 87% before it gets to back to fair value. TSLA is overvalued due to memes and potential growth, Apple is overvalued mostly because of potential growth and if they cease to be a growing company their valuation should theoretically fall down to fair value (likely below it as the market will turn pessimistic and believe they will start declining).

>>60525428
For sake of reference, fair value here is a P/E raito of 23.53 or a earnings yield of 4.25%, which is close enough to the current federal funds / floating risk free rate (4.33%).

>>60525433
>>60525390
>>60525401
>>60525010
better estimate of P/E is closer to 27 using FY2024 numbers
you cant value tech companies who spend heavy on r&d just by regurgitating posted p/e

apple 2024 93.7 billion net income BUT spent 31.4 billion in r&d expense, similar pattern for Q1 2025 24.8 net income 8.5 r&d. I opted for full year numbers in case net income or r&d expense is cyclical

adding back r&d expense and calculating p/e with a rough share price of 220 (sept 28ish numbers, same date as the 10k) gives you around 27 P/E. There is probably an easier way to do this using the calculated p/e given in the 10k already

this is important stuff guys, dont just look up the p/e ratio on yahoo or something and use the number there