Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

DTphonehome

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Apr 4, 2003
1,927
3,497
NYC
Anyone have any idea why "Apple Computer Corp" has the ticker AAPL? There's only one "A" in the name of the company! Wouldn't APPL be better (I know that it's taken)?
 
  • Like
Reactions: LoveToMacRumors

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,909
1,496
Palookaville
If it helps any, all ticker symbols on the NASDAQ, the market where AAPL is listed and traded, are four letters in length. Ticker symbols on the NYSE are one, two, or three letters in length.
 

mcarnes

macrumors 68000
Mar 14, 2004
1,928
0
USA! USA!
Steve Jobs made a typo when he sent a memo to the financial advisor.

The "A" key did stick a lot on that bugger.

174.jpg
 

Squonk

macrumors 65816
Mar 15, 2005
1,370
14
Maybe its like companies having names like AAA so they are first on the phone book. AAPL puts apple significantly closer to the top of the list than APPL would.

I was thinking something along these lines as well. AAAA Bail Bonds :p
 

mkrishnan

Moderator emeritus
Jan 9, 2004
29,776
15
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
I'm shocked that this thread has not generated a more elaborate conspiracy theory.

FWIW there is an APPL but it doesn't appear to be a very online company. Or at least I could not locate any news about what it is, what it does, or what its history is.

So why didn't Apple go for the NASDAQ symbol "JOBS"? :D
 

dane0

macrumors member
Oct 24, 2006
44
0
Århus, Denmark
FYI APPL is some company named Appell Pete Corp. A search on the internet will bring up a few stock quotes, but nothing really interesting. Probably some shady form of company channeling money for laundering so the big man won't have to pay any taxes :rolleyes:
 

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Jul 11, 2003
27,397
12,521
If they were to change their symbol- MACS would be my choice. Or maybe RDF.
 

mkrishnan

Moderator emeritus
Jan 9, 2004
29,776
15
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
Not on Wall Street it ain't!

Actually their notebook computers at least are quite profitable. And they have a much richer mix of product sales in computers than pretty much any other PC manufacturer (maybe tied with Sony, as Sony also doesn't really sell budget fare?). This isn't particularly true, even though the iPod garners a lot of attention.
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,909
1,496
Palookaville
Actually their notebook computers at least are quite profitable. And they have a much richer mix of product sales in computers than pretty much any other PC manufacturer (maybe tied with Sony, as Sony also doesn't really sell budget fare?). This isn't particularly true, even though the iPod garners a lot of attention.

I think it's sadly true that the markets still really don't understand anything Apple is doing beyond the iPod. Not so many years ago, AAPL was trading for way under book value -- at a price roughly equivalent to the value of their cash on hand, which valued everything else the company owned, and their business selling Macs, as absolutely worthless. As odd as this was, you'd still have had a hell of a time finding any broker who'd recommend buying even a single share. I don't think the situation has changed appreciably today.
 

ftaok

macrumors 603
Jan 23, 2002
6,491
1,573
East Coast
Maybe its like companies having names like AAA so they are first on the phone book. AAPL puts apple significantly closer to the top of the list than APPL would.

At least according to a book that I read (Infinte Loop), the reason that Apple chose AAPL was to have it listed higher on the NASDAQ alphabetically. It was a Steve Jobs decision.

How much of it was true and how much is lore is debateable. Kinda like how when Woz was named employee #1, Jobs demanded to be employee #0.

ft
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,909
1,496
Palookaville
At least according to a book that I read (Infinte Loop), the reason that Apple chose AAPL was to have it listed higher on the NASDAQ alphabetically. It was a Steve Jobs decision.

How much of it was true and how much is lore is debateable. Kinda like how when Woz was named employee #1, Jobs demanded to be employee #0.

ft

This story doesn't sound very plausible, if only because stock tables are not sorted by ticker symbols but by the company's name. As was pointed out, APPL was already taken. This didn't leave many options, except perhaps APLE. Not sure if that one isn't also already in use.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.