Google and Apple are two technology companies that most (including yours truly) constantly obsess about. From minor software upgrades to new half-baked betas, dozens of websites, hundreds of blogs and mainstream media report on Google and Apple. Whether that is a good thing or not, who knows. (I have argued before that if start-ups focus on Apple, they are likely to get more buzz, and early adopter adoption.)
It was fun to note that obsession amongst enthusiasts is reflected in the stock prices of the two companies. Cowen & Company’s technology strategist, and our good buddy, Arnie Berman in his Technology Focus reports points out the convergence between the Google and Apple stocks.
Considering that Google’s and Apple’s businesses have almost nothing in common, the correlation in the prices of the stocks has been remarkable. But as hot growth stories with seemingly unstoppable financial momentum and business models levered to the emergence of the “digital consumer”, the stocks became connected in the minds of many investors.
Interestingly, the two stocks have been heading down for most of 2006. Since the second quarter, there has been increased divergence between Apple and Google.
Hey maybe people are quite worried about the rumored iPod killer from Microsoft? I wonder if this disconnect is permanent or will it be business as usual in a few months, especially after the Apple’s Developer Conference. Any thoughts?
7 thoughts on “Apple, Google Holding Hands…”
A correlation like the one above is a troubling sign for a market. The correlation of both indicates that their valuation is driven more by speculative money flows than value.
The trick is to determine where the money will flow when it flows out of the darling tech stocks like GOOG and AAPL. I happen to believe that the money will flow from the current 4 darlings – AMD, HP, Google and Apple into the four stepchildren – Microsoft, Yahoo, Intel, and Dell.
A more detailed analysis here.
thanks for the comments. i agree, and actually was looking for this post of yours and then lost track of my own thought process. reminder is good. i appreciate it.
AMD has already managed to disappoint us – so we now wait for the others to do the same?
amd is no darling. it has gotten crushed from the 40’s to the low 20’s since february and off some 30% for the year. more an orphan given the viscious price war of attrition it and intc are roiling.
and look at this one, the rlnshp between googs and oil services is tighter than googs and aapl over 52wks…
Good one… really need to put some stats in to get a quantitative correlation but visually you are right.
All this tells you is money flow is the #1 driver of markets.
The Fed flow of funds report is the most neglected piece of raw data that provides a good indicator as to what is happening in the economy.
I think you’re going to see a BIG cheer from the developer bleachers when the keynote is delivered and Leopard is unveiled.
I can only hope the XServes are finally migrated over to the Intel platform and that WebObjects gets rolled into XCode (for free). I can dream can’t I?
As for the valuations of Google and Apple… I’m no financial analyst. But, it seems to me you could pick a couple dozen publicly traded stocks and have visual parity on the charts. The fact it’s Google and Apple just makes it fun to speculate.
Gerald in Tulsa
While Andrew’s analysis is an interesting one, it has little reality in it. (Of course, sotck prices also have little to do with reality either!)
Just look at his article…
The graphic groups three of his “four horsemen” with Google – even though one could simply get a MUCH closer relationship by replacing Google with Yahoo.
He talks about how Web 2.0 is based upon PCs – completely ignoring the fact that Apple is a PC maker.
Oh, and talk about convenient agruments. He begins his article with this quote:
‘Your broker was overheard in 2000 “Yes, things are in fact a bit irrational but these companies have real products, revenues, and earnings…’
And then somehow turns it around to claim Intel, Dell, and Microsoft are better buys for precisely those reasons.
The precise argument I made is that the valuation gap between the two sets of companies was irrational and that there should be a convergence. So far I have been correct.
While the Nasdaq is down 5.3% since May 16th, a hedging strategy that sold the favorites against the stepchildren yielded 6.6% minus cost of capital.