"....you're so vain, you prob'ly think this song is about you...."

If folks were as subservient as accused, they would heed my insistence that I haven't claimed Apple is overvalued! I merely value Berkshire's Apple holding it based on a multiple of the look-through earnings rather than on current market price, as explained for example here mungofitch replies on Berkshire undervalued
As I've noted any number of times, I certainly *hope* Apple is worth more than the number I pencil in, I'm merely unwilling to *assume* that that's the case just because Mr Market is in a buoyant mood.

When the market multiple is higher than the multiple I use, I ignore the price and just keep on tracking the earning power value, which sometimes leads to using a lower valuation than the market price. That's not the same as bearishness. True, P/E is pretty rough as way of valuing a firm, but I think it's way better than market price in this case: the stock price has risen about 10%/year faster than the earnings in the last decade. Not 10% total, 10% a year.

Besides, the rather arbitrary multiple I use (21) is considerably higher than what Apple stock got in the market at any time in the decade 2011-2020--hardly a permabear level.

One flaw in my approach did show up this past quarter, though: I didn't expect Berkshire to actually *realize* the high price for half the shares : )
Even after tax, Berkshire realized 24.7 times earnings.
(average cost basis $34.26, average sale price $196.27 in Q2 which was most of it, gross profit per share $162.01, 21% tax on gross profit $34.02, so net profit per share 196.27-34.02= $162.25, versus EPS of $6.57)

Jim