or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Needham sees Apple shipping 30M iPads, 17M Macs in 2011
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Needham sees Apple shipping 30M iPads, 17M Macs in 2011

post #1 of 20
Thread Starter 
Needham & Company increased its revenue and earnings per share estimates for Apple on Tuesday, with new figures that reflect higher estimated shipments of 30 million iPads and 17 million Macs in 2011.

Analyst Charlie Wolf's new estimates take into account higher-than-expected demand for the iPad 2 since it launched in March. In the third quarter of fiscal 2011, Wolf originally projected Apple would sell 7.5 million iPads; now he sees that number hitting 9 million.

"While competitors have rushed to launch competing tablets, they have made an imperceptible dent in the trajectory of iPad sales," Wolf wrote in a note to investors. "They have been unable to undercut the price of the iPad; and they're fallen woefully short in matching its features, ease-of-use and the number of applications written for the device.

"Indeed, the only risk in our forecast is on the supply side, not the demand side."

Wolf has also increased his third quarter Mac shipment estimate to 4.25 million units, up from the previous prediction of 3.75 million. With another 4.9 million Macs in the fourth quarter, he sees shipments for Apple's fiscal 2011 reaching 17 million.

The updated numbers also include slightly lower estimated iPhone sales. Wolf said he reduced fourth-quarter shipments from 17.5 million to 16 million because Apple is likely to reduce channel inventory of the iPhone 4 before the fifth-generation iPhone goes on sale.

Needham's third-quarter revenue estimate has been increased to $25.4 billion, up from $23.5 billion. In fiscal 2011, he sees Apple earning $103.6 billion, an increase from the previous prediction of $101.1 billion, with earnings per share of $25 for the year.

Wolf's forecast of 2012 revenues was also bumped up to $130 billion, from $125.2 billion, with EPS of $30.



A week ago, Wolf made a prediction that the iPhone will continue to win back share from Google's Android platform in the U.S. smartphone market. He found that Android experienced its first sequential loss of market share in any region in the U.S. during the December quarter.

Wolf also has high hopes for the success of the Mac in the enterprise market. In May, he noted that enterprise Mac sales grew 66 percent in the previous quarter, easily outpacing the PC industry's growth of 4.5 percent in the same market.
post #2 of 20
Charlie Wolf is not a star-rated analyst, so I would tend to disbelieve his predictions. His accuracy is actually worse than Shaw Wu and Katy Huberty, but slightly above that of Gene Munster, so he's in the middle of a sorry bunch.

It should be pointed out that as a whole, professional analysts pull their predictions out of body orifices.

I'll give you three guesses as to which orifice, but you're only going to need one...

post #3 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

Charlie Wolf is not a star-rated analyst, so I would tend to disbelieve his predictions. His accuracy is actually worse than Shaw Wu and Katy Huberty, but slightly above that of Gene Munster, so he's in the middle of a sorry bunch.

It should be pointed out that as a whole, professional analysts pull their predictions out of body orifices.

I'll give you three guesses as to which orifice, but you're only going to need one...


We have to pay more attention to the trends they give with their projections than the actual numbers themselves. If you do that, you'll find their predictions to be useful. They usually do get the trend correct, and most of the analysts are predictable themselves as to where they will be in the numbers. So we can get a good idea of what to expect from their analysis as long as we follow them for at least a year, or more.

I like Andy Zaky myself. He's usually been very close, but of course, he's not on the dot. No one can be. Too bad that his site, Bullish Crossing, is now behind a $40 a month pay wall.

By the way, the article has the $103.5 billion wrong, as it describes it at 2011 "earnings", which of course, is wrong, as it's sales.
post #4 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

I'll give you three guesses as to which orifice, but you're only going to need one...


Nose?
post #5 of 20
30 millions seem more accurate than the 40 millions that other analysts predicted.

I like how AAPL is undervalue, when the earnings comes in, the P/E is going to get so low that the stock will be "force" to rise up. And I am not even counting the $$ Apple has. I wish Apple could start paying dividends, would be a nice flow of cash for me.
post #6 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

We have to pay more attention to the trends they give with their projections than the actual numbers themselves. If you do that, you'll find their predictions to be useful. They usually do get the trend correct, and most of the analysts are predictable themselves as to where they will be in the numbers. So we can get a good idea of what to expect from their analysis as long as we follow them for at least a year, or more.

I like Andy Zaky myself. He's usually been very close, but of course, he's not on the dot. No one can be. Too bad that his site, Bullish Crossing, is now behind a $40 a month pay wall.

By the way, the article has the $103.5 billion wrong, as it describes it at 2011 "earnings", which of course, is wrong, as it's sales.

I don't put any faith in the professional analysts anymore. The bloggers have beaten the pros ten straight quarters in predicting the two most important figures: revenues and EPS.

Andy Zaky is consistently the best of the bloggers. Maybe now that his site is behind a "semi-pro" paywall, his accuracy will start to drop.

In general, it's best to remember that 95-98% of all Apple rumors end up being wrong. We just need to accept that the pros are more wrong than the amateurs.
post #7 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I like Andy Zaky myself. He's usually been very close, but of course, he's not on the dot. No one can be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

Andy Zaky is consistently the best of the bloggers.

I wonder if the amazing Andy Zaky still stands by his statements from August 2010, when he said,
"Research in motion (RIMM) is a fundamentally sound institution that is clearly undervalued ... That doesn't stop the inefficient market from pricing the stock at less than half of what it ought to be worth"

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/08/...ce=yahoo_quote

For the record, RIMM was trading at about $56 at the time ($28 today). Is RIMM still fundamentally sound? I wouldn't bet on it. Zaky is a one-trick pony. It doesn't take a genius to bet that Apple will perform well in the long-term. Where are all the amazing bloggers and their financial expertise on OTHER stocks, besides Apple?
post #8 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleStud View Post

I wonder if the amazing Andy Zaky still stands by his statements from August 2010, when he said,
"Research in motion (RIMM) is a fundamentally sound institution that is clearly undervalued ... That doesn't stop the inefficient market from pricing the stock at less than half of what it ought to be worth"

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/08/...ce=yahoo_quote

For the record, RIMM was trading at about $56 at the time ($28 today). Is RIMM still fundamentally sound? I wouldn't bet on it. Zaky is a one-trick pony. It doesn't take a genius to bet that Apple will perform well in the long-term. Where are all the amazing bloggers and their financial expertise on OTHER stocks, besides Apple?

Ouch.
post #9 of 20
The iPad's sales have been limited by production, not competition. So, to base your analysis on the lack of competition seems to miss the point.
post #10 of 20
In the past the pro allow me to make lots of money on Apple stock, today it is too hard at such a high price. Ever time one of these idiot came out with a prediction it caused me to either sell or buy depending on what they were saying and I just waited a bit until their prediction was found to be wrong and the took the appropriate actions at the time. Their prediction use to cause Apple's stocks to take wild swings in the past 10% to 20% or more and it was easy to buy and sell and make profits on the swing in a short period of time.
post #11 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by crustyjusty View Post

The iPad's sales have been limited by production, not competition. So, to base your analysis on the lack of competition seems to miss the point.


They are assuming Apple can address the supply issues, if they can not that alone may be much more serious issue for them. However, not having people to sell to is a completely different issue and usually not a easy problem to fix in the short term, ask RIM and the others about that problem.
post #12 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

They are assuming Apple can address the supply issues, if they can not that alone may be much more serious issue for them. However, not having people to sell to is a completely different issue and usually not a easy problem to fix in the short term, ask RIM and the others about that problem.

Various analysts have been reading tea leaves and suggesting that Apple's supply woes are ending, I'll try to dig up the links but there was some info regarding screen shipments rising that seemed fairly convincing along wth the general mumbling.

Edit: One of the links I was thinking of http://www.electronista.com/articles...ipment.issues/
post #13 of 20
I'll give you three guesses as to which orifice, but you're only going to need one...

[/QUOTE]

Is that the prediction of a professional anal-yst?
post #14 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleStud View Post

I wonder if the amazing Andy Zaky still stands by his statements from August 2010, when he said,
"Research in motion (RIMM) is a fundamentally sound institution that is clearly undervalued ... That doesn't stop the inefficient market from pricing the stock at less than half of what it ought to be worth"

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/08/...ce=yahoo_quote

For the record, RIMM was trading at about $56 at the time ($28 today). Is RIMM still fundamentally sound? I wouldn't bet on it. Zaky is a one-trick pony. It doesn't take a genius to bet that Apple will perform well in the long-term. Where are all the amazing bloggers and their financial expertise on OTHER stocks, besides Apple?

For some reason I think you missed the point of that statement. RIMM's value from an earnings perspective is clearly strong. But the company doesn't value the stock on its earnings. It's valuing RIMM based on the idea that some point in the future the stock is going down the PALM road.

And by the way...Here's the full article on RIMM:
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/09/...-really-worth/

If people bought there at $40.00 when I had written this Fortune article, and sold it when I said to sell (see the last comment as follow up to the article that people should sell on December 18, 2010):

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2256...n-rim-overdone

They would be up 50%. Sorry. Just need to keep the record straight. I noted buy RIMM at $40 in September and sell RIMM at $63 in December. But I guess if I ever state that a company is fundamentally sound it means that I believe this to be the case from now until perpetuity. No one can ever change their stance or be in a trade for an intermediate term position?

Also, I do cover several companies. It's just that the only thing people seem to care about is Apple and so that ends up being the focus. Over the past year, I've covered well over 10 companies and trade the SPY. Here's my public record for the SPY so far:

http://bullishcross.com/spy-model-performance/

Here are my public trades on the SPY:

http://bullishcross.com/the-public-list-of-trades/

It's easy to quote stuff out of context. If I tell people to buy Apple here at $330 and then tell people to sell it at $500 and then it falls below $330 after reaching $500, don't you think it would be unfair to forget to quote the part where I said to sell the stock?
Andy M. Zaky
Bullish Cross
www.bullcross.com
Reply
Andy M. Zaky
Bullish Cross
www.bullcross.com
Reply
post #15 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyzaky View Post

For some reason I think you missed the point of that statement. RIMM's value from an earnings perspective is clearly strong. But the company doesn't value the stock on its earnings. It's valuing RIMM based on the idea that some point in the future the stock is going down the PALM road.

And by the way...Here's the full article on RIMM:
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/09/...-really-worth/

If people bought there at $40.00 when I had written this Fortune article, and sold it when I said to sell (see the last comment as follow up to the article that people should sell on December 18, 2010):

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2256...n-rim-overdone

They would be up 50%. Sorry. Just need to keep the record straight. I noted buy RIMM at $40 in September and sell RIMM at $63 in December. But I guess if I ever state that a company is fundamentally sound it means that I believe this to be the case from now until perpetuity. No one can ever change their stance or be in a trade for an intermediate term position?

Also, I do cover several companies. It's just that the only thing people seem to care about is Apple and so that ends up being the focus. Over the past year, I've covered well over 10 companies and trade the SPY. Here's my public record for the SPY so far:

http://bullishcross.com/spy-model-performance/

Here are my public trades on the SPY:

http://bullishcross.com/the-public-list-of-trades/

It's easy to quote stuff out of context. If I tell people to buy Apple here at $330 and then tell people to sell it at $500 and then it falls below $330 after reaching $500, don't you think it would be unfair to forget to quote the part where I said to sell the stock?

To me, "fundamentally sound" means implies more than just the next quarter or two.
post #16 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleStud View Post

I wonder if the amazing Andy Zaky still stands by his statements from August 2010, when he said,
"Research in motion (RIMM) is a fundamentally sound institution that is clearly undervalued ... That doesn't stop the inefficient market from pricing the stock at less than half of what it ought to be worth"

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/08/...ce=yahoo_quote

For the record, RIMM was trading at about $56 at the time ($28 today). Is RIMM still fundamentally sound? I wouldn't bet on it. Zaky is a one-trick pony. It doesn't take a genius to bet that Apple will perform well in the long-term. Where are all the amazing bloggers and their financial expertise on OTHER stocks, besides Apple?

In the tech industry, thats a long time. In one sense, RIM is still fundamentally sound. They've got no long term debt. they've got a fair cash position. they're now part of a major patent consortium, they're on their way towards a new OS and hardware. Also, sales are still growing.

This means that they are fundamentally sound. What it doesn't mean, is that they will remain that way. Going back to last August, RIM was in a different situation. They've been slipping, but they can still come back, if they do everything right. They aren't beyond that point yet. If they haven't gotten back fully on the path by the middle of next year, they will be in serious trouble.
post #17 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredumb View Post

I'll give you three guesses as to which orifice, but you're only going to need one...


Is that the prediction of a professional anal-yst?[/QUOTE]

That was not even the slightest bit a useful post.
post #18 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by sessamoid View Post

To me, "fundamentally sound" means implies more than just the next quarter or two.

You didn't really respond to his post.
post #19 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

In the past the pro allow me to make lots of money on Apple stock, today it is too hard at such a high price. Ever time one of these idiot came out with a prediction it caused me to either sell or buy depending on what they were saying and I just waited a bit until their prediction was found to be wrong and the took the appropriate actions at the time. Their prediction use to cause Apple's stocks to take wild swings in the past 10% to 20% or more and it was easy to buy and sell and make profits on the swing in a short period of time.

I know I'm going to regret this, but here goes: In fact and in reality, AAPL is cheaper now than it has been in years. The problem is, it has been growing steadily cheaper for the last 3 1/2 years.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #20 of 20
It's 30 million iPads because apple cannot make them enough. While I see mac sales are very impressive, apple's money really comes with iOS devices and apps.

Seriously, if apple can get China mobile to be on board, then it's almost game over.

China mobile has 600-700 million users. That's like 7-8 times of what AT&T has. AT&T has merely like what... 90 million?

Once apple sells more iDevices... They will lure people into app store, book store and music store.

What I don't understand is why apple stock is growing so slow, but netflix stock is going up so high. Netflix only sells freaking movies. They are expanding other countries? Ok... but stocks go like 10-20% up next day.

Apple also has a good chance of going after Nintendo and Sony for portable gaming market as well as home console market with Apple TV.

I ain't buying no more of those overpriced PSP and Nintendo DS. iPod touch is so much better.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AAPL Investors
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Needham sees Apple shipping 30M iPads, 17M Macs in 2011