Apple stock drops over 10% in after-hours trading during Q1 earnings call - Page 4

 

You can't treat Apple like a utility because they pay a crappy dividend.  Utilities tend to be good income stocks on the other hand.  And that cash pile is useless to me as an investor.  Look at RIM.  No debt.  $3 billion in the bank.  They're stock still crashed to oblivion when they started failing, and they had somehting like $10 billion in the bank when their troubles started.  And like it or not, that's what investors are worried about.  One bad iPhone launch and the stock will tank.  Not to RIMM levels, mind you.  But to under $400. 

 

As for new markets.  I have my doubts.  Apple doesn't do well when they don't control the whole setup (remember Moto ROKR?).  Now look at embedded systems like cars.  What incentive does Audi have to give up branding and profits/margins on nav sytsems to Apple?  Have you ever seen a car company allow a standard interface on their cars, which includes none of their branding?  Heck, auto groups like VAG, don't even maintain the same branding across their brands.  And yet people think they'll hand over control of one of their most important customer experiences to Apple?  Wishful thinking at best.  And Apple just isn't capable of cooperation and integration like this:

 

http://www.audiusa.com/us/brand/en/owners/audi_connect/navigation.html

 

It's not in their DNA.  The most Apple will get from these companies is an optional Siri button and some Siri compatibility with their in-car systems.  So unless Apple is going to start building cars, fridges and washing machines, I wouldn't expect embedded systems to be huge for Apple anytime soon.

 

Like I've said, TV is their best bet.  But TV is just pointless to attempt without content.  And, the TV producers are a lot wiser than the music industry execs that Apple strongarmed.  So this is going nowhere for a while.  They might actually prefer to go their own way on a web service or co-operate with Google or Amazon to combat the rising Netflix threat, than they would to co-operate with Apple.  Apple is probably the partner of last resort for them.

 

Lastly, it's just a myth that people are judging the stock based on the loss of Steve Jobs.  If that was the case, the stock never would have climbed after Jobs passed away.  No, investors are just being rational and cautious.  It's their money on the line.  And they aren't fanboys who will only see rainbows and unicorns and ignore negative warnings.

You can be an analyst then

 

The Chinese definition of middle class is nowhere near the American definition of middle class.

 

There's a reason Apple has to offer payment plans to make iPhones affordable in China.  And it probably has to eat the interest too.

 

China, will, of course, be huge.   Lots of latent demand, and when Apple finally addresses it, they'll have to invent a new class of ships to carry money.  But, I do worry about margins when it comes to China.

 

Mac bigger than Google?  By what measure.  I wasn't aware that the Mac unit has a market cap of $240 billion dollars.  Nor was I aware that the iPad had become a business unit with a $234 billion dollar valuation.  And the iPod division has a $23 billion dollar valuation?  Since when?

 

Part of the reasons fanboys can't take the stock fluctuations is becuase of ridiculous myth building like this.  Some actually believe crap like the Mac is bigger than Google.

 

Take out the iPhone, and the rest of Apple combined would probably be the same size as Google....or smaller.  So in reality, Apple (as a stock) is as dependant on the iPhone as Google is on search.  And Google's got less competition on its key market than Apple does.

 

As for me, I'm afraid about about a bad iPhone launch (a la "You're holding it wrong") and devastating impact that could have on the stock price.  Of course, I also balance that risk with the likelihood that Apple will keep growing steadily for the forseeable future.  That's why I maintain my holdings.

 

But if you think Apple is a safe bet, why do you go all in with your entire portfolio on AAPL?  If you think your inner fanboy is a terrific investment advisor, put your money where your mouth is.  Dump all your lifesavings on AAPL.  It's a sure bet right?

 

I'm hoping AAPL will close the year at about $600 and maybe hit $700 by end of 2014.  I still think analysts are being a bit optimistic, predicting $700 by the summer.

I don't think that is necessarily true.  If you buy a cheap $100 Android phone, it is going to run like crap and not be able to run most of the newer apps available.  Your user experience will be horrible and you might want to try something new when you can afford it.  Alos I find it ridiculously ironic that the same morons that gripe about margins seem to think it would be good for Apple to sell a sub $200 phone.  What do they think would happen to margins then????

I've been an apple user and customer since 1995. I've grown up with the company - their products have enriched my life.  I've followed the rumors, the speculation, and the stock price from the $30's to the $700 high. Finally went long somewhere around $500.  I'll hold my pittance of stock because I've seen Apple fight back too many times before to believe it's best days are behind it. The problem is Apple is shitting gold in a world where investors expect platinum diarrhea. No company's stock can withstand those expectations.

 

Easy: less fiber.

 

You hear that, Apple? Don't make anything that has a carbon fiber case! Let the stock price flow through you!

 

One.  And the price of the stock reflects those risks.

 

And tell me why the number of products they sell should matter to me as an investor?

 

They have one car, with an average selling price above $80 000.  They've pre-sold all of 2013's production.  Buy now and you'll be lucky to get the car this year.  And their average daily order rate is rising  and has already outpaced their production rate.  They have a gigantic technological lead, and they are building an entire ecosystem around electric cars.  They are also exceptional at marketing.  Not a single ad on TV, but 20 000 cars sold.  How?  Through strategic location of Tesla stores (heck, they're VP on this front is ex-Apple).  Heck, they don't even let you test drive the car.  They've won several Car of the Year awards including Motor Trend.  And their manufacturing costs (for electric vehicles) are exceptionally low and of very high quality, with much of it done in house.  Does all that sound familiar?

The only reason the stock isn't higher is because they aren't profitable yet.  Lots of investors seem to be analyzing them like a traditional car company as opposed to a tech company.  So the risks of failure are priced in.  But I'm grateful for all the shorts.  They keep the price down.  I predict a bloodbath when their earnings report comes up.  A sweet Valentine's day present for me.  Will be lovely if I can catch a short squeeze.

 

As for comparing between TSLA and AAPL.  All I can say is that TSLA has returned to me far higher paper gains in the last year than AAPL.

I don't get the talk about the end of subsidies in the US affecting only AAPL. On AT&T the Galaxy SIII is $549.00 off contract ($599 on Verizon). The Galaxy Note II is $649.00 ($699 on Verizon). The SII is $399.00 and The Note I is $599. Sure Samsung sells 9 other smartphones on AT&T off contract but those four would give them their biggest margin. Those four would be their best phones and presumably get the most recent Android updates at a faster clip.

 

Now when we look at the Apple Store website the iPhone 5 unlocked is $649.00. The 4S is $549.00. The 4 (8 GB) is $450.00. You can't get them unlocked from AT&T (though they do show the regular price) but you can from Verizon at the same price points. We see that Samsung's newest phones are priced similarly off-contract to Apple's.

 

The cheapest off-contract smartphone on AT&T as a whole is the Pantech Burst for $299.99 (LTE-capable). The cheapest Samsung is the Samsung Rugby Smart (real name) for $329.99. The cheapest Samsung LTE-enabled phone is the Samsung Galaxy Exhilarate (real name) for $379.99. On Verizon the cheapest off-contract smartphone is the BlackBerry Curve 9310 Social Messaging Smartphone for $299.99. The cheapest LTE-enabled phone is also the cheapest Samsung and is the Samsung Galaxy Stellar (real name) for $329.99.

 

 

So yes the newest iPhone starts at $649 while the newest Samsungs start at $549 and $649. Those are priced much higher than most other smartphones without the subsidy. But if the subsidy model erodes that still affects Samsung's higher margin devices. Sure they would still sell the lower margin loss-leaders but how long would that continue? It would send the the US back to the feature phone era where companies weren't making money. I don't think Samsung or Nokia or RIMM wants that just the same as Apple doesn't.

 

With the subsidy on AT&T the prices range from $0.01 (various) with 2-year contract to $299.99 (Galaxy Note II) with 2-year contract. The subsidy brings prices together to let phones stand on their own merit. And as we've seen from AT&T's and Verizon's earnings the iPhone wins out.

 

So an individual user's real options are to pay ~$199 up front with a ~$60/month bill and risk paying up to $349 to leave before two-years..

 

- or -

 

Pay ~$550 up front with a ~$60/month bill with the ability to switch carriers (if they support your phone).

 

I think most people expect to remain with one carrier which is why they would want to limit their up-front cost which is why I expect most people are fine with the subsidy.

 

I think Samsung and Nokia and RIMM want their higher end phones to not be a roadblock on price and stand on their own merit over cheaper "smart" phones (similar thinking to Apple) which is why I expect they are fine with the subsidy model.

 

I think the telcos are not fine with the subsidy for the initial hit on profits. But it gives people a reason to commit to them long term. They'd rather have long-term commitment and 'stickiness' and long-term profits like Apple does rather than miniscule short-term profits with the chances that people will leave them after only a couple of months. That's why I think they're fine with the subsidy. Sure they maybe can do away with the subsidy, make everybody month-to-month, and say if you sign up for a year or two you'll get $10-$20 off each month of your bill. But nothing talks like that up-front cost when you're actually purchasing a device. Other industries like cable and utilities do that take off from your monthly bill if you *commit* long term but they are only providing a service. If you're knocking ~$400 off an upfront fee for a device most people are taking that deal.

 

They don't care about that. Those other companies offer cheaper (read: crap) phones additionally. The minimum cost of entry for Apple smartphones is $450*, which is "too much" for "people" to "pay". And indeed, the phone price is higher than the price of the low-end (read: old or crap) phones from others.

 

*It's way, way, way, way more, but they all pretend that you then don't have to pay monthly for the phone.

Actually, my experience tells me the opposite: the people who got a subsidized free or cheap Android phone 2-3 years ago were so disappointed, they switched to iPhones when their contracts were up for renewal. The learning curve wasn't an issue. One person I know even switched to the new Nokia Lumina 920 from Android. When I asked them about their upgrade, I found that low price was still a deciding factor for them, so they didn't jump from $100 to more expensive Android device. That they could get a Lumia 920 or iPhone 4S at the $99 level (with contract) appealed to them. They didn't jump to a more expensive "elite geek-spec'd" Android phone.

The Windows XP example is an invalid analogy, because most users (not the tech savvy ones) just use whatever OS came with their computer for as long as they own that computer. Their decision to upgrade to say, Windows 7 is then tied to their PC upgrade cycle. They will tell you (they think) they need a new PC to run Windows 7, so they plan to upgrade when they get a new PC. They don't want to upgrade the OS while still running 5 year old hardware. It's NOT because they "don't want to learn new stuff."

Let's see. No mid range sans monitor desktop Mac. Not even the choice any longer of a user installed internal optical drive on the Mini and the IMac. No, I see no reason sales are flat.

 

You act as though this has ever been a concern at any time in Apple's history. 

 

That's funny, but it's also sad.

Hell if I know. You're the one who posted:

Why don't you get back to me when you are finished arguing with yourself.

I'm wondering why the flat profits on increased Gross Revenues.  What changed for the quarter that brought the Net Profits to that level?

 

If they used the same profit margin as they did a year prior with the same SG&A, etc. then they should have seen about $3+ Billion additional in Net Profit.

 

So what expenses increased $3 Billion?

 

How much was spent in R&D, Cost of Revenue, SG&A, any non-recurring, Income Tax Expenses, Other Expenses they didn't have last year?  Is it because they are paying dividends this year and they didn't last year? I'm sure that's part of it.

Those prices are discounted.  Isn't the unlocked SIII 16G model have a retail list price of $699 before any discounting?  I think Samsung is discounting to move product since they're sales are slowly eroding, which is normal when a product becomes over 6 months old. It's reaching it's end of flagship status and will become a cheaper phone when Samsung releases the S4.

I think Apple stock will definitely rebound when they sign China Mobile and they get more updated products out there.  Despite what Cook says about the size, I think they should have a larger screen size iPhone for those that want a larger screen.  the 4inch is a keeper, but they should offer a larger screen size.

Also, it will be interesting to someday get Maps fixed, just to shut up the Fandroids out there.

 

I'm sure we'll see some more cool products to be released later this year.  I know it won't add tons, but the new MacPro would be great for the high end Pros.. I think they've been patient enough.  It will be interesting to see what they do to the OS and iOS.

 

No, profits weren't flat, because this year's quarter had one week less than last year's quarter. This year's profits were slightly higher with one less week, when adjusted for the same time frame, this years sales were up 12-13% over last year.

Actually, profits per share BEAT Wall Street expectations, it was revenue and number of iPhone units sold that were slightly below expectations.

 

But first the street hammered the stock for expecting lower margins, and then when they have higher than expected margins they hammer the stock again, because it fell slightly short on ridiculously high and arbitrarily chosen sales targets, even though Apple was quite forward about production constraints, which by the way, lead multiple times to price adjustments for the stock (even though these are not fundamental issues with the company, but temporary impediments).

 

So the 10% drop cannot be described as anything else but mass hysteria, because all potentially bad news about the quarterly numbers was actually less bad than people feared,and had already priced into the stock. Rationally speaking the stock should have stayed steady or risen, either because there was no surprise data, or because the "bad" news was less "bad" than expected, if one can talk about bad news in the context of double-digit earnings and sales growth.

 

And the constantly repeated meme that Apple has shown that it stopped being a growth company... Hello? Most so called growth companies are lucky to get into the high single-digit growth figures consistently.

 

That's the big mistake people make: Apple's stock with the current performance is already undervalued. There is no need of a next-big-thing for the stock to hold the levels it had last year, and certainly right before the earnings announcement.

Adjusted for cash, divident payment, value of the brand and patent portfolio, you already end up with more value than what the stock price is at.

 

Also people don't know how to count "next big things". iPod touch, iPhone, iPad, are essentially all the same, adjusted and optimized for different use patterns. SO the big things Apple/Jobs had were: Apple II, Mac, (NeXT) => Mac OS X, iPod, iOS.

People for some reason take iPhone, iPod touch, iPad as "big" steps, but then they deride iPad mini as "nothing new" even though it sells like mad, and many iPhone and iPad users notice that it fills a usage gap (e.g. eBook reading) that the neither the iPad nor the iPhone are particularly good for. So people use iPhone on the go, iPad mini for eBooks, bigger navigation screen, cheaper device for kids, etc., and the iPad for more serious work, photo albums, video watching, etc.

 

In any case, historically speaking the "next big thing" doesn't come with the frequency that people irrationally expect, and something like an iTV, given the market's nature, is not something one can simply announce; the failure of GoogleTV should serve as a clear reminder of that.

 

There are so many areas that Apple can go into with their technology and make a difference, but they will do it at their own pace, and they have to do it at a pace technology and production capabilities allow for. Anything else is foolish, and to talk about the demise of Apple is just the same BS as I have heard over and over in the context of that company.

I concur, Apple needs to have a plan on buying back stocks and go private. They won't need to deal with silly stockholders that lacks abilities to understand where Apple is heading or doing. Does Wall Street care any other company would be glad to take half of Apple's numbers? Really!

 

Yep. He even said so himself (sans OS X, but he was just talking about hardware then)

 

I don't know of anyone that claims the iPod touch as being a distinct "step". The iPad certainly is. The iPad mini is not. It's to the iPad what the iPod touch is to the iPhone.

 

Yep!

Tim probably watches TV, but not as much as other do, he's probably too busy dealing with Apple.  He might even have an Apple TV prototype he's playing around with.  I would if I were the CEO of Apple.

 

I am interested to see Jony emerge at these product announcements.

Amazon lists the unlocked SIII at $899 (???) which seems pretty high. Didn't find unlocked prices on Samsung's site.

 

 

 

Amazon also lists the iPhone 5 at $749 unlocked when it's $649 from Apple's site so I'm not exactly sure. But yeah it belabors the point that Samsung and those guys don't want an end to subsidies, either.

CNN: Exxon Mobil reclaims title of world's most valuable company, as Apple's stock continues to drop