or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Wedbush initiates coverage of Apple stock with $405 price target
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Wedbush initiates coverage of Apple stock with $405 price target

post #1 of 34
Thread Starter 
Investment firm Wedbush Securities began coverage of Apple stock on Wednesday, and kicked off its analysis with an "outperform" rating and a 12-month price target of $405.

Analyst Scott Sutherland issued a 35-page report Wednesday, in which he said he believes the investment opportunity for connected devices is larger than most people expect. With a strong early presence in the growing smartphone and tablet markets, Apple has an advantage in the mobile market that the company could use to drive adoption of other products, like Macs, the Apple TV and new cloud-based services.

"Apple's rapid emergence and dominance in mobile has turned the industry upside down," Sutherland wrote. "The control once enjoyed by mobile operators and device manufacturers is being absorbed by Apple."

Sutherland sees Apple continuing to grow the iPhone platform with the addition of a CDMA handset, allowing the company to address a potential market of 550 million CDMA subscribers. He noted that Apple's record 14.1 million phones sold last quarter represented 18 percent of all smartphone sales, but just 4 percent of all mobile phone shipments.

With the iPhone expected to arrive on the Verizon network in the U.S. in the near future, Sutherland sees the carrier selling more than 10 million of Apple's handset in 2011.



The analyst said he also believes the iPad will become a significant incremental revenue stream for Apple. He has projected sales of 14.3 million iPads in 2010 will give Apple 96 percent of the tablet market. If tablet shipments hit 45 million in 2011, he sees Apple selling 24.2 million of them, taking a 54 percent share.

"Tablet computers are coming so fast, industry estimates do not even seem to be able to keep up while Apple analysts have been trying to leapfrog one another with the most aggressive iPad estimates," he said.

Sutherland also highlighted the Apple TV as a "hobby that builds the ecosystem," calling it a business that could grow significantly in the coming years. He noted that while Apple has been successful with most media types, video has been a "weakness" for the company's iTunes service.
post #2 of 34
JUST initiating coverage?
Where were they the last 4 years?
post #3 of 34
An interesting notion - the "hobby that builds the ecosystem".

I bought an ATV2, largely because it was cheap. My son took decided he wanted to get one also, but was thinking in terms of having a machine to act as a media server, and doesn't want to keep his MBP on all day for that. When he mentioned it to me, I thought - great idea. Now we both went out and bought Mac Minis to serve the ATV2. Now I have removed all the media from various Macs around the house, put them all on the Mini, and it is backed up by time capsule without redundantly having the same files on various machines.

Now, granted, we were already an all Mac household. Still, 2 $99 purchases ended up with buying 2 $699 computers to go with them.

Thank goodness this is a poor economy and we have been frugal. Otherwise Lord knows what we would have ended up getting.

As an aside, this morning I just bought Rogue Amoeba's Airlink which lets you stream any audio (not just iTunes) eg. Pandora to the ATV2 or for that matter to the iPhone/iPad. Rogue Amoeba has a bunch of very nice low priced utilities such as this one.
post #4 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by studiomusic View Post

JUST initiating coverage?
Where were they the last 4 years?

Not covering AAPL. No investment firm can cover all stocks, even the large company stocks. I've never even heard of Wedbush before. Seems to be a smaller firm.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #5 of 34
Pretty pedestrian observations... even by "professional analyst" (oh, an oxymoron) standards.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #6 of 34
I'm not an expert here, but shouldn't it be time for a stock split?
post #7 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by vexorg View Post

Now, granted, we were already an all Mac household. Still, 2 $99 purchases ended up with buying 2 $699 computers to go with them.

Two Apple TVs can stream from the same Mac... Only one Mac mini was necessary.
post #8 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by HahaHaha321 View Post

I'm not an expert here, but shouldn't it be time for a stock split?

why split?
post #9 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by OllieWallieWhiskers View Post

why split?

So more people can invest. I'm sure there are a ton of people out there who want to buy but don't want to pay over $300.
post #10 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by OllieWallieWhiskers View Post

Two Apple TVs can stream from the same Mac... Only one Mac mini was necessary.

Yes, but we don't live in the same house. The kid is off at college.
post #11 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by vexorg View Post

Yes, but we don't live in the same house. The kid is off at college.

ah. i see. that makes things all clear!
post #12 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by HahaHaha321 View Post

So more people can invest. I'm sure there are a ton of people out there who want to buy but don't want to pay over $300.

There are a huge number of people who are kicking themselves for not having bought it when it was an $80 stock less than 2 years ago. And these same people will be kicking themselves if AAPL gets to be a $400 stock.

You can still buy a $300 stock, you just buy less shares. If you would normally buy say 200 shares of a $100 stock, you buy 80 shares of a $300 stock. It is important to position size your portfolio so you do not put too many eggs in one basket.

Frankly I don't think there is any need for AAPL to split, but there again I'm not the one deciding.
post #13 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by studiomusic View Post

JUST initiating coverage?
Where were they the last 4 years?

hiding behind the bushes, perhaps!
Same Apple. Same Mac. Different Take. Different Place. http://Applemacness.com
Reply
Same Apple. Same Mac. Different Take. Different Place. http://Applemacness.com
Reply
post #14 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by vexorg View Post

There are a huge number of people who are kicking themselves for not having bought it when it was an $80 stock less than 2 years ago. And these same people will be kicking themselves if AAPL gets to be a $400 stock.

You can still buy a $300 stock, you just buy less shares. If you would normally buy say 200 shares of a $100 stock, you buy 80 shares of a $300 stock. It is important to position size your portfolio so you do not put too many eggs in one basket.

Frankly I don't think there is any need for AAPL to split, but there again I'm not the one deciding.

I'm only kicking myself for not buying more when it bottomed out two years ago.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #15 of 34
Wedbush is a small brokerage company. They also let smaller hedgefunds white label their services whilst using wedbush infrastructure/back office services.

Also- if people won't pay $300 for a winner stock.. then too bad so sad. I am glad apple is finally out of the price range of ditsy day traders and small time investors who panic at every news story.
post #16 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by HahaHaha321 View Post

So more people can invest. I'm sure there are a ton of people out there who want to buy but don't want to pay over $300.

If you can't afford $3,000 let alone $300 you have absolutely no business buying individual company stocks. Investing turns into gambling if it is not excess money you can afford to be without for long periods if necessary, or lose altogether if things go sour.
post #17 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by HahaHaha321 View Post

So more people can invest. I'm sure there are a ton of people out there who want to buy but don't want to pay over $300.

You mean ... double the amount of shares "in play", thereby cutting the value of each share in half? .... hmmmm, sounds like what the feds are doing to the US $$$ .... increasing the money supply ... also known as "printing $$$ out of thin air" , thereby making each doller worth(less) ..... neither is a good "strategy" .... imho. ....
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
post #18 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by vexorg View Post

You can still buy a $300 stock, you just buy less shares. If you would normally buy say 200 shares of a $100 stock, you buy 80 shares of a $300 stock. It is important to position size your portfolio so you do not put too many eggs in one basket.

Frankly I don't think there is any need for AAPL to split, but there again I'm not the one deciding.

So your advice to someone who cannot afford to invest $20,000.00 in Apple is to invest $24,000.00 ..... huh? .... must be "new math" ..... do you work in the banking industry, perhaps? ...
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
post #19 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by AIaddict View Post

If you can't afford $3,000 let alone $300 you have absolutely no business buying individual company stocks. Investing turns into gambling if it is not excess money you can afford to be without for long periods if necessary, or lose altogether if things go sour.

Amen to that, brother.

Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

You mean ... double the amount of shares "in play", thereby cutting the value of each share in half? .... hmmmm, sounds like what the feds are doing to the US $$$ .... increasing the money supply ... also known as "printing $$$ out of thin air" , thereby making each doller worth(less) ..... neither is a good "strategy" .... imho. ....

You are half right, but I think for the wrong reasons. When a government bank increases the money supply, the move has real economic impacts. But when a company splits shares, nothing happens to the value of anything.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #20 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Amen to that, brother.



You are half right, but I think for the wrong reasons. When a government bank increases the money supply, the move has real economic impacts. But when a company splits shares, nothing happens to the value of anything.

Can you show me any real positive, lasting effect on the last several years of increasing the money supply. I don't see it.
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
post #21 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

Can you show me any real positive, lasting effect on the last several years of increasing the money supply. I don't see it.

He never said it was a "positive" impact.
post #22 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

So your advice to someone who cannot afford to invest $20,000.00 in Apple is to invest $24,000.00 ..... huh? .... must be "new math" ..... do you work in the banking industry, perhaps? ...

Oops - my bad. I meant 200/3 which is about 67 or so shares.

It is a good idea when purchasing stock to set a dollar limit that you will spend - perhaps a certain percentage of your portfolio for that stock. Maybe no more than 10% or even less for a single stock. No matter how much you like a company, things can happen and you don't want your entire nest egg to go belly up.

Think of the poor sods whose entire retirement accounts was in Enron stock - which I'm sure looked like a good idea at the time.
post #23 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

Can you show me any real positive, lasting effect on the last several years of increasing the money supply. I don't see it.

Not my point, and I didn't want to debate politics anyway. I was simply pointing out the problem with the analogy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post

He never said it was a "positive" impact.

Thank you.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #24 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by OllieWallieWhiskers View Post

why split?

Mostly to increase the volume of shares traded by institutional investors. Fund managers are impelled to invest more in heavily traded companies.

Berkshire-Hathaway's Class B shares split 50-to-1 in January 2010. Today's volume of BRK-B is roughly twice that of split-adjusted trading volume back in 2008. Also, it allowed Berkshire-Hathaway to be included as a component of the S&P 500.
post #25 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

Mostly to increase the volume of shares traded by institutional investors. Fund managers are impelled to invest more in heavily traded companies.

Berkshire-Hathaway's Class B shares split 50-to-1 in January 2010. Today's volume of BRK-B is roughly twice that of split-adjusted trading volume back in 2008. Also, it allowed Berkshire-Hathaway to be included as a component of the S&P 500.

I think using BRK-B as your lone example is rather weak. Even if you had a more relevant example, it would only be anecdotal.
Still, there may be evidence out there to support this theory, but since this same troll has brought up this topic under who knows how many now banned names, I don't see any point in giving him the satisfaction of getting into it...
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
post #26 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post

He never said it was a "positive" impact.

Actually, he kinda did. I made a comparison of two statements stating both as being "bad strategy", in other words ... negative. He replied that I was only half right .... meaning his answering statement was a positive one ...... but I'm thinking your reply was meant to be humorous ... no?
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
post #27 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

Actually, he kinda did. I made a comparison of two statements stating both as being "bad strategy", in other words ... negative. He replied that I was only half right .... meaning his answering statement was a positive one ...... but I'm thinking your reply was meant to be humorous ... no?

Actually, no, I kinda didn't. The half-right part was that stock splits don't have any real impact.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #28 of 34
stock splits do have an impact.

in some cases they can be beneficial for a company in distress... and in many cases the can be disparaging to a company's value.

take apple for instance. when apple was was in the sub $150 range it was far more open to day trading bullshit along with stock manipulation via "news".

Apple doing a stock split would have zero benefits. Steve Jobs is very aware of all of this. His health was a huge basis of manipulation. Anyone remember Bloomberg's supposedly erroneous obituary release? I doubt he will split the stock opening it up to more such BS. A $300 stock is far harder to manipulate than a $150 or lower priced stock.
post #29 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Actually, no, I kinda didn't. The half-right part was that stock splits don't have any real impact.

So we don't agree with the value of expanding the money supply policy . Instead of being vague about the merits of that policy why not just explain why you seem to think it's a good policy?
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
post #30 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

So we don't agree with the value of expanding the money supply policy . Instead of being vague about the merits of that policy why not just explain why you seem to think it's a good policy?

No, I expressed no opinion whatsoever on that issue. I don't feel a need to add any irrelvancies to this discussion.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #31 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRR View Post

stock splits do have an impact.

in some cases they can be beneficial for a company in distress... and in many cases the can be disparaging to a company's value.

take apple for instance. when apple was was in the sub $150 range it was far more open to day trading bullshit along with stock manipulation via "news".

Apple doing a stock split would have zero benefits. Steve Jobs is very aware of all of this. His health was a huge basis of manipulation. Anyone remember Bloomberg's supposedly erroneous obituary release? I doubt he will split the stock opening it up to more such BS. A $300 stock is far harder to manipulate than a $150 or lower priced stock.

There is no truth of any kind to any of this, except that stock splits are not beneficial under nearly all circumstances. The impact on trading is nil if only because the change in the value of the shares available for trading is nil.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #32 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

No, I expressed no opinion whatsoever on that issue. I don't feel a need to add any irrelvancies to this discussion.

Of course not, why change now?
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
post #33 of 34
Exactly. I'm confident I can leave the irrelevancies to you.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #34 of 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

Exactly. I'm confident I can leave the irrelevancies to you.

With your superior experience of using irrelevant posts ... you should feel confident!
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
Apple is not Appl ...... Please learn the difference!    
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AAPL Investors
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Wedbush initiates coverage of Apple stock with $405 price target