Verizon iPhone predicted to earn Apple 'respect' on Wall Street - Page 2

Analysts turned to sheep long time back and there no one to stop until they are made deprived of the the cash that comes as part of their bull-shitting!

... by 30% the first day and by more than 50% when the carnage is done...

well thats not only apple, when the magellan fund lost its guru it dropped but came back roaring, SJ dna is all over that company i would think. someone should make a book of SJ quotes to quide the "sales guy" that often comes to the rescue of a company, aka balmy MS. when a company losses focus is when they suffer, well apple did that and they have history to show them humility, many companies get lost in their "titanic" and narcissistic ways, oh yea we can't sink, we are so wonderful, and watch those mergers that don't make sense, sprint, aol, etc.

There are good reasons for that - analysts have trouble seeing the current growth continue. It's much easier for a small company to have large growth for a number of years, than for a company as large as Apple. 5 years of 70% growth, and they'd be 15 times larger than today - which won't happen for Apple. Also, for small growth companies almost all of the growth can be net profit. For Apple, benefits of scale won't increase much if any further. Also, few companies are seen as much one-person risk that Apple has.

I have a completely innocent question:

Is wall street a leading or lagging indicator of the economy?

Is Wall street rigged against the small "investor/player"?

I realize it is not rational. So why "invest" in a system that is not rational. That, to me, is irrational.

Any enlightenment would be appreciated.

Wrong again. If you paid even a little attention you would have noticed that I called out above that the cited PE is forward, and even explained what that means, for those who don't know. For those who can't be bothered, nothing is going to help.

You're right... you did say that and you are correct... 14.13 forward p/e.

My apologies.

In other words, Wall Street simply doesn't know how to value such a large company growing so quickly. There is an ingrained "law of large numbers" attitude that suggests that once you get that large, you can't *possibly* keep growing that quickly. Of course, the naysayers have been saying that for quite a while, and the train keeps a'rollin. They also believe that Apple just has to screw up at some point (for how many consecutive years can a company keep firing on all cylinders?). And that Jobs will die and leave the company in a shambles. And the whole world will wake up one day and decide that Apple products aren't cool anymore.

So, I wouldn't say at all that Wall Street doesn't "respect" Apple, but it is true as others have mentioned that Apple is not priced according to its growth. And I agree with Dr. Millmoss that it seems highly dubious a Verizon iPhone is going to correct this situation due to a higher level of "respectability". More likely, the simple fact of greater iPhone sales, and improved market share and sales numbers vs. Android will do the trick, though even those will not offset the Apple risk factors mentioned above.

Personally, I believe it's quite clear that Apple still has enormous room to grow. You can debate whether you believe they'll successfully execute for enough years into the future to achieve the growth. I think they will, at least for a while longer.

Maybe. But what I've seen is a fairly steady PE compression over the last few years, and multiples were never what you be tempted to call out of sight for a company growing earnings as rapidly as Apple. I think the markets have never been totally convinced by Apple's earnings story, which is why I am skeptical of this analyst's suggestion that the Verizon iPhone is going to change attitudes which are really deeply entrenched. If you're an AAPL investor, you just have to accept that the markets aren't going to value the company like others with similar or even lower rates.

Actually... WS has never taken to Apple... ever. WS has never taken Apple seriously. Especially in the early 80s. I mean, what investment house worth its salt would give credence to a company named Apple... your company had to have a serious name or forget about it.

Apple has fallen before... so, as you say I think they're waiting for the other shoe to drop... but the train keeps rolling.

The questions now are... Is that all Steve's got? Is he done? Will he step aside to hold only an advisory role? What will happen to Apple if Steve steps down?

[... and, meanwhile, I enjoy the money Apple has made me]

Wouldn't that be something like a priest getting "respect" from the alter boy he just violated?

True.

As Apple has gotten very large, and their track record of unparalleled successes gets longer, Wall Street keeps inventing new reasons to be skeptical. Eventually they'll be right, but in the meantime there's been (and continues to be) a stupid amount of money to be made in this stock.

Oh, hell no. It'll drop 25-30% and be a gigantic buying opportunity when it happens. Set your limits in advance!

- Leading AND lagging

- Yes and no

- If stocks were completely rational, there would be no chance to make money on them

That's all for now.

I agree... now Apple probably has people with vision that exceeds SJ... and people with the ability to keep it on track. Unlike the late 80s and early 90s when they were just extending the ideas that had been put in place during Steve's era... then they got completely lost so they licensed the OS... Apple really was worth nothing at that point.

They usually come out with at least one major operating system upgrade during the year between hardware releases. These are available to EVERYONE and add great functionality each time. Most Android upgrades never make it down to people who already own Android phones. My iPhone4 is already better than it was when I bought it.

That depends on how you define "the economy". In some ways, it's not an indicator of anything, leading or lagging.

Well, 4G is supposed to use an OFDM-based signaling layer, so there wouldn't really be CDMA apart from the certain fact that this phone would have to support legacy 3G networks, too. That said, anything with the digital guts to modulate OFDM can certainly be adapted at the baseband level to also do CDMA2K as well as W-CDMA. In other words, any 4G baseband chip probably also has both types of 3G standards on it, as firmware.

I agree that Apple has people who can keep it on track. Whether there is anybody with the vision and moxie (let alone exceeding that) of SJ is another matter.

Let's face it - the man is one of a kind.

Investing is making a bet on future growth prospects. That's why Microsoft can rake in several billion dollars a quarter but their stock has been flat for the last 10 years - not much belief that Microsoft can expand once computing moves beyond the desktop.

The iPhone can't continue to grow stuck to AT&T, or at least that is what Wall Street is betting. Once Apple moves to other carriers in the US, the growth potential of the iPhone will be greatly increased, Android's growth will probably be stunted, and Apple's "respect" on Wall Street will go up. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

What an absolute bunch of wankers these Wall Street analysts must be? They apparently 'respect' the companies that caused the GFC or profit from selling the tools of death and destruction in other countries, yet not 'respect' one of the few US company that has consistently demonstrated excellence in both innovative product development and global market penetration over the last 10 years.

I wonder if they will 'respect' the manufacturers of Android phones once the inevitable Android malware starts spreading like wild fires? Just as is happening with MS Windows, Android will only succeed in tying itself and its users in an impenetrable mess that will be easy pickings for Steve Jobs and his team at Apple. But then again, Wall Street never learns from history.

Charisma... there isn't anyone who can touch SJ in this department.

So far, Google has taken a page from Microsoft's playbook (RIM pun intended) and stopped improving Android's features when they are "good enough." Far from "compelling." And if you include the App Store in the iPhone "experience" (and how could you not?) Android will always fall far short of Apple's experience. The Android Market is a cesspool of cheesy ripoffs, free malware, porn, and ad-supported spamware.

But don't take my word for it. Peter Vesterbacka of Rovio, the developer of Angry Birds, says that Android is "Open but not really open, a very Google centric ecosystem. And paid content just doesn’t work on Android." Just Google (oh the irony) "Vesterbacka Rovio interview" and you'll find many articles with that quote.


Verizon's motivation is to maintain their subscriber lead over AT&T. Since AT&T began selling iPhone, they have gradually gained market share and now nearly equal Verizon. Despite AT&T having the worst service among all major U.S. cell carriers.

Verizon has no interest in anything other than maximizing their voice and data plan revenue. That means increasing the number of subscribers and getting them to buy expensive voice and data plans. They will do whatever it takes, including throwing Android down the same staircase that they threw RIM down.

That's right. At one time RIM's BlackBerry was the darling of data plan revenue for Verizon. But not any more. How far the mighty have fallen. The same thing can and will happen to Android on Verizon. There will be no more safe haven for Android once Verizon starts selling iPhone.

Android market share on Verizon will drop to roughly that of Android market share on AT&T. Far below iPhone. Verizon will have a new flagship smart phone, and they won't hesitate to promote it over all others.

I think most of us agree that it's now only a question as to when the Verizon iPhone happens. Apple honestly can't afford to wait. They learned very fast from waiting on this current iphone exclusive which is why they are for once moving their asses on getting the iPad to market faster.

All this talk about the announcement will be at a "Apple" event is lame I think. Theyve gone off many other exclusives with no fanfare whatsoever. It's not like Apples dumping Att. Steve Jobs giving his direct blessing to Verizon would no doubt cannibalize the hell out Att iPhone sales especially how every single news outlet constantly repeats that Consumer Reports rated them (Att) as worst. This whole deal etc is a lot more methodical than most comprehend. It's got ramifications all over the place and the Consumer Reports pifce did not help.

It's perfectly fine for Verizon to announce it's on sale at CES. Apple will have a announcement this month but it's for iPad 2 not for a Verizon iPhone. The only way I could see Apple getting involved directly would be if Verizon itself gets an Apple exclusive of some kind, like a very special model. A white iPhone finally? A LTE ready? Why can't Jobs be with Verizon at CES??

I also highly highly doubt Verizon waits till June or July. Att itself would totally want the Verizon on sale to stop a flood of difections that would happen in shine or July when a huge pot of iphoners contracts at Att are up. Sure Verizon would love that. Let's face it a boatload are gonna switch no matter what day or month the on sale is.. Bottom line market pressures are calling the shots here. That is demonstrated by how fast Apple got the iPad out there. Six months is an eternity in technology. I'd be shitshocked if Verizon waits.

Ironically, the observation is not about analysts, it's an observation by an analyst about investors.

It's about earnings growth and the anticipation of future earnings growth. MSFT has been fairly flat over the last decade because their rate of earnings growth isn't increasing. Investors will tend to bid down the multiples of stocks of companies that don't have the prospect of accelerating earnings. Part of the AAPL story today is the question of whether the company can continue to grow at its recent historical rate going forward. The conventional wisdom is that this becomes more and more difficult the larger the company becomes, and it morphs from a growth to a value stock.

Marketshare is meaningless, as long as Apple continues to sell more iPhones each quarter than they did the quarter before (with some allowance for seasonal variations), then they are still growing, now matter how many cheap Android based phones are sold in China and India.

Case in point, worldwide Nokia still retains number one market share, Symbian is still the number one smartphone OS, yet as a company they are drifting further into irrelevance.

Funny thing, that. They likely feel the same way about you.

The reasons had a lot to do with technology... AT&T is the only carrier in the US using the same GSM frequencies as roughly 75% of the rest of the world.

Well no prizes for guessing you flunked Economics 101. Demand never holds back sales, it supports them; a lack of adequate supply will hold back sales.

As for only using one telco, in Europe the iPhone is sold by multiple providers now. There are no more exclusive deals here, and as a result market share and profits have gone up.

Exactly. If they don't give a crap about their readers, there's no reason for us to care about them.

I'm wondering how Wall Street doesn't "respect" Apple with a $300+ share price and a $300+ billion market cap.

Keep repeating this, and eventually it will sound like a meaningful statement. That does seem to be the theory around here anyway.

You're right, its not just that guy that's stupid... its the whole Wall St cluster@#$%

it is a lagging indicator. a few lead, and a lot follow. you can ride the gravy train, or be the last dude standing with no chair.

it is totally rigged against the small time "day trader". someone who invests long term is quite insulated against pro traders as long as you do your homework.

it isn't rational because it is run by emotion... but that's why you can make a lot of money as well. The reason why you should invest is because you can make more money over a long term than by stuffing your money in your mattress. Just holding onto one currency implies just as much risk as the stock market.

I'm sorry.. but dr.millmoss obviously read too much motley fool sites and stuff.

maybe he knows basic technicals.. but so what? so does everyone else.

You should be sorry. You haven't responded to a single thing I've written. Sniping is just plain cowardly.

Please

Last thing we Apple Folks need is ANYTHING from Wall Street

Bunch of short-sighted/short-selling greedy bastards

With zero sense of The Future of The Global Village

Need evidence - look at past few years

Hell, look at the past 40 (and Enron, S&L, etc etc)

Is all artificial - just so many scribbles on paper - just "vaporware"

.

Now Apple and OSX and iPad and iPod and iPhone ?

THOSE are real, and all the money in the world won't create them

Just ask Bill Gates

.

BC

Don't usually flame, and could've picked other posts here, but you get the "honor" of being told that your "logic" is a fat load o' crap from start to finish. Without risk capital (made possible by the "evil" accumulation of wealth in "fiscal instruments" like stocks and bonds maintained by brokers), virtually none of the technology you depend on and laud would ever have existed. Including Apple, Inc. And including Gates' admittedly entirely-self-serving investment of $150 million into a reeling Apple.

The development of markets - funded by those with belief in long-term visions is as big a factor in bringing humanity out of the dark ages as any of the inventions they made it possible to develop and spread.

Fabs costs billions, for one example, and markets are the only places sums like those can be raised. And most of the recent innovations coming out of "garage" operations that we take for granted came about only under the wings of venture capital angels or larger firms willing to take a chance on some engineer's or other geek's dream.

Global village, my fat patootie.

The second biggest market cap got so far no respect on the market? Apple, do you think you need that market anyways?
OK, let me put it like this. Do you think you need a model for the US market only, while you're desperately failing to launch some white UMTS phone, which targets far more markets at once?