.
Where did you get those impressions? From published info, AAPL grows revenue faster than AMZN.
Company… EBITDA… EBITDA margin… EV/EBITDA
AAPL… … $129.6B … … 33% … … … … 20.99
AMZN… … $52.6B … … 10.8% … … … … 28.04
Technically, only AAPL AMZN TSLA NFLX of FANGMANT are above 50-day SMA.
Since @manch misses the boats of AAPL and TSLA, jumping onboard of AMZN seems ok so far 
Using stage analysis, only AAPL and TSLA are above 40-week EMA*. That is, possibly in stage 2 
Note* Some use 30 week SMA, some use 200-day SMA
Impact of rate hike and QT on MANGMANT (previous FANGMANT).
Rate hike & QT hardly has any effect on AAPL. We can conclude that AAPL wasn’t inflated by easy money by Fed.
QT was announced on Nov 3.
Did AAPL go down during 2001 and 2008 …2020 recession?
If so, this time also it will. Wait & See, it will come on rotation.
No new idea. Still the same old same old. FANGMANT less two still the same old companies. No upstarts?
Danny is one of those millennial investors who believe only in software stocks because of their supposedly high margin asset-light characteristics.
Wondering how many more decades would FANGMANT dominates our life?
As a restaurant goer, I notice Apple Pay, SQ and TOST dominates the payment processing.
Market cap at closing on Oct 12, 2022.
AAPL $2.23T
MSFT $1.68T
GOOG $1.29T
AMZN $1.15T
TSLA $701B
META $357B
NVDA $287B
NFLX $98B
MAGA remain the only $T market cap stocks.
He explicitly says revenue growth. You show us the static revenue number. Want to mislead people?
He said “how big the business becomes” over long periods of time.
He’s not wrong. Any big 100B company today like Walmart and Costco was once a 100M company. They got to be worth 100B by their consistent revenue growth over decades.
Is META at a NFLX $160s price?
Kevin thinks META has bottomed, bought in. FA indicates price is too low BUT FA metrics are irrelevant if business is in a decline. Many investors don’t want to take risk with metaverse. Are those investors sold out of META? If yes, META has bottomed.
https://twitter.com/SPYleaps/status/1585576443425308672/photo/1
When you’re down, people say such things about you.
The reason for such a low return is because Mark has intentionally waited for a long time to IPO FB, he didn’t want those “add little value” investment companies (e.g. GS) to make tons of money from the IPO.
The reason for such high return for MSFT is because it is not well known at IPO. It was just a tiny software development company. To spot such company is nearly (nearly because may be some people can) impossible. Whereas FB (now META) and GOOG were well known at IPO.
MSFT ipo-ed in the 70s. Most of those investors are now either dead or too old to enjoy their wealth. META’s IPO investors are still alive and kicking.
Would you rather be a MSFT or META IPO investor? 
.
I want to be a friend 
of BG. Even if no CEO job, can leverage on BG’s parent. Networking or guanxi is critical to huge success in corporate or investment.
Interesting. Wonder how many investors think this way.
He only got the AAPL threat right. Wrong on every other name.
MSFT is the big tech name with the smallest regulatory threat. See how many companies they were able to acquire in the last few years?
.
Since you can say he is wrong, guess your have your own weighing scale. Kindly share.
Note: I am clueless.
An alternative…
This second guy is much better. He got everything right except TSLA.
IMO Tesla’s biggest threat is Elon himself.
