Has Warren Buffett made his best move ever selling his Apple stock?
It's never a good idea trying to second-guess the Oracle of Omaha. Warren Buffett sold a huge chunk of his Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) stock last year. It wasn't the first time he trimmed his position in the tech giant. Back in 2021, he admitted selling was 'probably a mistake'. But, amid recent share price weakness, I doubt he will repeat the same line this time.
Recent soundings from Apple CEO Tim Cook seem to indicate he has taken a leaf out of Buffett's playbook. In a recent earnings call, he pushed investors to be patient as it attempts to roll out AI features in the iPhone. 'Not first, but best' was how he put it in an interview last year.
In an investing landscape measured in quarterly earnings, though, many don't have much patience. In some respects, he is right. Three years into the generative AI revolution and not one consumer product has emerged, other than ChatGPT, of course. And that's despite the industry spending hundreds of billions of dollars, and with the might of the media hyping the technology on an almost daily basis.
Recently, Jony Ive, the architect instrumental in the design of the iPhone, sold his company to OpenAI for $6.5bn. At the not-for-profit startup, he is working on what has been described as a 'screen-free' device. Some reports highlight that mass production could start as early as 2027.
The threat is clearly on Apple's radar. During the ongoing Google anti-trust trial, one of Apple's senior executive stated: 'You may not need an iPhone 10 years from now, as crazy as that sounds.'
Given the present state of hardware technology and the extremely vague statements that have come from Sam Altman regarding no-screen devices, I'm not willing to give much credence to these remarks. But, of course, that could change in the years ahead.
Apple has a history of not rushing into a new technology, until its full potential is understood. It was a little-known company when General Magic invented the first smartphone. It didn't invent the music player, either.
The biggest short-term risk to the stock is tariffs. Apple has undoubtedly been the biggest beneficiary of outsourcing manufacturing to China. It has certainly been a major contributor in pushing the valuation to $3trn.
Trump's ambition of seeing the iPhone mass produced in the US is unlikely to ever happen, in my opinion. With consumers being squeezed from all directions these days, I don't believe they would ever stomach paying up to $3,000 for one.
Tim Cook has already guided to expect $900m in additional costs over the next quarter. A tiny figure, yes, but I can't see it ending there. Without price increases, the frothy valuation looks unsustainable. As I just said, I'm not sure that consumers will be as obliging as in the past and accept such increases.
As for Buffett, he still holds a significant chunk of Apple stock. But with a trailing price-to-earnings of 32, I'm not sure the risks are fully priced in. Therefore, I won't be investing.
The post Has Warren Buffett made his best move ever selling his Apple stock? appeared first on The Motley Fool UK.
More reading
5 Stocks For Trying To Build Wealth After 50
One Top Growth Stock from the Motley Fool
Andrew Mackie has no position in any of the shares mentioned. The Motley Fool UK has recommended Apple. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors.
Motley Fool UK 2025
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sen. Ted Cruz proposes withholding broadband funding from states that regulate AI
The Brief Senator Ted Cruz proposed that states attempting to regulate AI should lose federal broadband funding. This proposal is an addition to a House-passed bill aiming for a 10-year ban on state AI regulation. Critics argue Cruz's plan is "undemocratic and cruel," forcing states to choose between broadband access and AI consumer protection. WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) proposed on Thursday an alternative punishment for planned legislation that would set a 10-year ban on state regulation of Artificial Intelligence model learning. Under Cruz's budget reconciliation proposal, an attempt to regulate AI would be prohibited from collecting federal funding provided by the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program. The Proposal The U.S. House of Representatives passed their version of House Resolution 1, the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," on May 22. In part, the budget bill would ban state regulation on AI for 10 years. As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Cruz authored a budget reconciliation that he says is intended to "fulfill President Trump's agenda." In a summary of the proposal, he refers to state regulation as "strangling AI deployment," comparing it to EU precautions against tech development. Cruz's proposal adds $500 million to the BEAD program, which has already administered $42.45 billion to the states in order to expand high-speed internet access across the country. It also prevents states from receiving any of that funding if they attempt to regulate AI. Dig deeper Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) has recently spoken out against HR 1, saying the anti-regulatory section alone will cost Congress her vote. Greene explained that she discovered the controversial provision, located on pages 278-279 of the bill, only after the House had already passed the legislation. Once the bill returns to the House following Senate deliberations, Greene says she will change sides based on the matter of AI. What they're saying Advocacy group Public Citizen released a commentary on Cruz's proposal, referring to it as a "display of corporate appeasement." In the article, J.B. Branch, a Big Tech accountability advocate, included the following statement: "This is a senatorial temper tantrum masquerading as policy. Americans have loudly rejected Senator Cruz's dangerous proposal to give tech giants a decade of immunity from state regulation. State legislatures, attorneys general, and citizens across all 50 states have demanded that Congress step away from overhauling consumer protections put in place in the absence of federal leadership. But instead of listening to the American people, Senate Republicans threw a fit and tied vital digital funding to corporate impunity. "With this move, Republicans are telling millions of Americans: 'You can have broadband but only if your state gives up the right to protect you from AI abuses.' It's undemocratic and cruel. Republicans would rather give Big Tech a 10-year hall pass to experiment on the American people unchecked, rather than give underserved rural and urban communities the ability to compete in the digital economy. Congress must reject this corporate giveaway and refocus their energy on representing the public interest." In her statements criticizing the anti-regulation portion of HR 1, Greene expressed concerns about developing rapidly evolving tech without checks and balances. "No one can predict what AI will be in one year, let alone 10," Greene said. "But I can tell you this: I'm pro-humanity, not pro-transhumanity. And I will be voting NO on any bill that strips states of their right to protect American jobs and families." What's next HR 1 is expected to continue undergoing changes in the Senate before returning to the House for another vote. Cruz's proposal has yet to be officially added to the legislation. The Source Information in this article comes from public U.S. Congress filings, Public Citizen, and previous FOX 4 coverage.
Bloomberg
14 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
US Inflation to Tick Higher as Tariffs Reach Consumers
By and Craig Stirling Save Subscribe to Economics Daily for the latest news and analysis. US consumers probably saw slightly faster inflation in May, notably for merchandise, as companies gradually pass along higher import duties.
Travel Weekly
23 minutes ago
- Travel Weekly
Are you booking or designing travel?
Richard Turen Looking back, I know that I would never have opened up a travel consultancy had I not worked the supplier side for quite a while. And I certainly would not dare write about our industry had I not walked both sides of the street. They are very different, even though they might be in the same neighborhood. I worked for one of the largest cruise lines, starting out on the West Coast. I visited travel agencies four days a week. I was a director of sales, and my job was to drum up business. But my reality was that our ships were starring in a little TV series called "The Love Boat" then, and they were sold out much of the time. I might have been a lousy salesperson, but no one knew it, and I was promoted to be vice president of the East Coast and the Midwest. Now I was responsible for 26 states; lots of agencies to visit. So starting on the West Coast and then taking on the East Coast and the Midwest, I was in and out of more agencies than I could count. During every visit, I was looking forward to discovering dozens of new business models. It would all be so stimulating. But it usually wasn't! There were precious few unique business models, and innovation was rare. Everything was sold on some sort of airline-owned CRM system. Airline sales made up just over 70% of a typical agency's sales. It was always the same scene. Two chairs in front of a desk with the client facing the back of the computer. And so it was for about four decades. Technology improved, and we noticed our clients searching online instead of seeking out a storefront. We were no longer booking robots; that could be done online. We started evolving into advisors. ASTA, an organization I feel has always had the collective backs of the membership it represents, caught on and went so far as to change its organization's name, with that last "A" now standing for "advisors" rather than "agents." We are now advisors -- sort of important to the families we serve. I see us as financial advisors, except our role is less about showing our clients how to grow their money and more about advising them on ways to dispense with some of it. Which leads me to an April article by Julie Bogen in the Washington Post. She explores the growth of the trend for agents to describe themselves as online travel "designers" who concentrate on creating truly personalized itineraries, travel troubleshooting and providing luxury perks. The article explains how contemporary consumers want to hire a "designer" instead of an "agent." The concept of a travel "agent" is now dated. Several successful designers are profiled in the piece, including one who created an itinerary with perks she felt would meet the needs of four prominent influencers. Sure enough, they liked the presentation, and it started being circulated on Instagram. Of course, a true travel designer has to be an FIT specialist, and some of you will surely feel that FITs are unusually time-consuming and less profitable than booking brochure programs. A travel office where every journey is custom-designed to meet the guest's profile may be fashionable, trendy, hip and always personalized, but I can't help but wonder what a travel design firm would need to charge guests in order to be profitable. I actually like the "designer" designation. I also like "travel architect" and "dream creator." It is possible that, at our best, we listen and then design what is best suited for the client instead of trying to sell them a program without taking into account their unique profile. But will we have to start spending more on our business attire if we start describing ourselves as designers? Will we need to be a bit more flamboyant? If we "flamboyantize" our industry in the months to come, I'm just not sure that my blue blazer will survive.
