or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Apple may need $137B cash hoard to weather 'very rough' next two years, analyst says
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple may need $137B cash hoard to weather 'very rough' next two years, analyst says - Page 2

post #41 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

So why do I keep seeing this "Apple just had the most profitable calendar year in human history" phrase everywhere? Will I ever see any proof of this claim or is it just one of those memes I'll keep hearing ad infinitum?

Is "human history" a euphemism for "in a good long while?"

Has someone scoured the financial history of ancient Sumeria, Babelonia, Greece and Rome to confirm this claim? How did they do the inflation adjustment calculations?

 

Stupid comment of the thread award! 

post #42 of 64
The article covers more than one issue but the part about capital expenditures is not fantasy. If you follow the analysis of Deidu at Asymco you probably recall that Apple's capex has been growing at an incredible rate so that it is at a level similar to chip foundries like Intel. To stay in the game they may need to tap that huge cash reserve as capex continues to soar. I don't see it as apocalyptic but rather evidence of Apple playing the long game. Most were criticizing Apple for building such a large reserve but maybe Apple had the vision to see that success would force the growth of capex and require those reserves in the future.
post #43 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

 The problem is that these people have no acountability- there should be major consequences if they're wrong, yet their never is. 

 

The accountability would come from people (like AI) to stop quoting this nonsense and after a short while, these people would lose their jobs, or the ability to post this crap. Or at the very least, we would not have to read it and comment on it. 

 

I would put more of the blame on AI for propagating known nonsense than for someone stupid saying stupid things. 

post #44 of 64
According to this author, Apple is going to need its cash to weather the next two years and sets up some kind of negative argument against Apple. Then he admits that new chip fab facilities need to be built because fabricators can't keep up with Apple's demand. Hmmm... Then he says hey, that cash should be used to pay higher dividends. Hmmm... but if it needs its cash to "weather the next 2 years", then how can it possibly make sense to give that cash away to investors?

And then the author really puts his foot in it by saying that Apple needs to compete with "white box" phones, clearly showing AppleInsider readership that he doesn't know Apple at all. This article is pure nonsense. Why are analysts jumping off a cliff when it comes to Apple? Simple. They don't understand the Apple. They don't get Apple's business model. They trash Apple and its stock because it's not fitting into Wall Street's mold or following Wall Street's demands.

Good for Apple! The one time Apple did try to compete by further differentiating its products was almost the death of Apple back in the 90s. Jobs re-focused Apple on just making the best products, not the most products. Apple will continue being Apple, with or without Wall Street. I own Apple stock and will not sell because I want to support this company for doing so much good in the community and treating its employees well.

Wall Street, this author and all of the analysts can spout off all they want.
post #45 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by shompa View Post



Tim is not a great CEO. Steve had passion. He believed in his things. He demanded things that people believed where impossible. Steve knew enough that he could demand technical solutions. Just look at the instant start story for Mac laptops/computers.

Meeting at Apple. Steve kicks in the door and come in with an iPad and a Macbook Air.
He shows the instant start on iPad. "Why don't the Macbook Air start as fast? FIx it. Throws down the Macbook air on the table and walks out the room.

That is management by Perkele.

Imagine how Tim would do it. (first. He would never get the idea about instant start)
"It would be good if computers started as fast as iOS devices"
"Its impossible"
"Ok... good enough"

The "good enough" attitude Tim have is Apples greatest treat. Ivy should be CEO.

So you know Tim? Who's "Ivy". Ive is a designer, not a CEO.

Steve also loved the Cube, the HiFi, and intro'd MobileMe.
post #46 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by eksodos View Post

Yeah people have been ranting against analysts for months. Initially there was the denial that the stock price would fall, then it moved to blaming the analysts for forcing the price to fall through a glass ceiling. I know people who have been seriously hurt by their blind love for all things Apple and playing the investment game. It's all too easy to get suckered into the notion that a price will keep going higher and higher and higher for eternity. And that you're missing out if you don't buy in with an investment in your favorite company as the stock continues to rise.

The problem is that the analysts haven't just be predicting Apple's decline - they've been actively spreading FUD in order to make it fall. Some of the stories are just insane. Even if Apple's profit drops by 99%, it still won't need to dip into its cash hoard. And no one in their right ming expects that to happen.

Now, if the analysts has just stuck to "As Apple's market share has increased and smartphones are approaching saturation in the developed markets, so they won't continue to grow at double digit rates", that might be a reasonable position. Instead, they dream up ridiculous expectations and then hammer Apple for failing to meet these ridiculous expectations that Apple never committed to.

Basically, it's like a fortune teller saying that you're going to die. When you say that doesn't seem likely, they pull out a gun and shoot you. Self-fulfilling prophecy.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #47 of 64
If Apple doesn't get their shit together on the desktop & Pro market they are going to end up being a trinket company that spends tons of money to compete in a market that can collapse overnight. Pro users, like my self, kept Apple alive through the lean years. We used to argue about how fast a machine was, and now we are touting how thin it can be made (with lackluster performance)?? iMacs are not pro machines. Like many I also teach, consult and manage computer labs. If I have to go back to Windows to compete in the pro market I'm taking all those others with me. I can't afford to do dual support and teach two systems at once. Apple lost the education market once, and they are just getting it back. It can happen again. And kids buy what they learn on. While the pro market may be a small branch of Apple's total sales, it's halo impact is bigger than they think it is.
post #48 of 64

Yea its ruff making record profits every quarter. It could be a very hard two years of record breaking sales. 

Anal-ists and there total STUPIDITY!

They are the only ones that see Apple in there own dreams as suddenly drying up with no sales, no products, whatever.

Go to an Apple store in the mall and they will be the only store that is packed, even if there's a Microsoft store right next to it or across from it.

OPEN YOUR EYES Anal-ists!!!

Apple is still running strong as ever, get off your STUPIDITY TRAIN please.

post #49 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Is this moron serious? Apple just had the most profitable calendar year in human history and yet they will hit the Mariana's trench within two years?

 

He is a bit pessimistic, but this could very well play out like this, which would be bad for my invesments.  We have too many fans here seeing things through pink glasses, which is not better than lowballing it imo.

 

That being said I am not very impress with Apple R&D, but I am still hoping they can make a come back and bring the growth.  ATM Apple is stall in terms of growth and its getting dangerously close of starting to decline. 

post #50 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

He is a bit pessimistic, but this could very well play out like this, which would be bad for my invesments.  We have too many fans here seeing things through pink glasses, which is not better than lowballing it imo.

That being said I am not very impress with Apple R&D, but I am still hoping they can make a come back and bring the growth.  ATM Apple is stall in terms of growth and its getting dangerously close of starting to decline. 

7-8% growth isn't stalled. Why aren't u impressed with the R&D? Because Apple hasn't reinvented a new product category? I don't remember Apple reinventing one on a yearly basis.
post #51 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

I'm getting fed up with these a$$hats.  They are totally trying to seed FUD to manipulate AAPL.  Apple is making boatloads of cash, will have even more in the bank in two years, yet these clowns keep thinking that Apple's best years are behind it.

Shame the SEC doesn't clamp down on this.

 

They're just trying to explain why Apple didn't want to distribute $137B cash hoard.  Nothing more.

post #52 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post

Are all of these analysts colluding/conspiring to push the price of AAPL down as far as possible to create the greatest rubberband effect possible?

 

I mean, talk about everyone jumping on the bandwagon.....all at the same time.

 

When a stock is down for 6 months there is no rubber band effect to come back up suddenly unless Apple does something spectacular, such as a phenomenal success on iWatch or iTV. Otherwise, APPL will trade in a narrow 10% range for another 3-6 months.

post #53 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by larryhorton View Post

Dear Apple Insider,

If not previously, market analysts have, for the past year, demonstrated that they are broadly clueless individuals with compromised intelligence, integrity, and vision %u2014 not to mention huge, misplaced egos.

Would it be possible for you to change your policy of trumpeting in your headlines the bleatings of such a low level of consciousness, as if they were the voice of God being channeled to your website? Give them your attention, if you must. But, please keep such drivel in proper perspective. Elevating these 'comments' to 'headlines' is making me question the competence of those who publish them. And it gives analysts far more credence than they deserve. Lose, lose.

I have more confidence in you than that.

Thanks!

I second that
post #54 of 64
"Misek said that high-quality products are forcing Apple to invest in next-generation technology."

Oh no! Investing in next-generation technology? Too bad they are being forced to do that--I'm sure they were trying desperately to avoid it.

Does this guy know he's writing about a technology company (and one with a bit of a track record of not sticking with the status quo)?
post #55 of 64

The execs sell all the shares they get for a reason.  Now they are trying to force them to hold onto a pathetically small amount (about 4% at current prices and salaries).  When you need a payment plan to afford a phone it's impossible to see any "halo" effect taking place and really hard to see people replacing their phone with any frequency at all.  With Cook claiming each slight redesign is "great" and "perfect" it's hard to hope anything really game changing is coming any time soon.

 

Hard to accept, but the best days are behind them.  The next few years are going to be about margin compression and decreasing EPS.  With a 10 multiple it could get pretty painful.  Curious to see how it plays out, but at least a big dividend hike would make the wait not as difficult and bring in another class of investor.

post #56 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by tkell31 View Post

The execs sell all the shares they get for a reason.  Now they are trying to force them to hold onto a pathetically small amount (about 4% at current prices and salaries).  When you need a payment plan to afford a phone it's impossible to see any "halo" effect taking place and really hard to see people replacing their phone with any frequency at all.  With Cook claiming each slight redesign is "great" and "perfect" it's hard to hope anything really game changing is coming any time soon.

Hard to accept, but the best days are behind them.  The next few years are going to be about margin compression and decreasing EPS.  With a 10 multiple it could get pretty painful.  Curious to see how it plays out, but at least a big dividend hike would make the wait not as difficult and bring in another class of investor.

Take your blinders off. I hate repeating myself.
post #57 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

 

Stupid comment of the thread award! 

Really? can you prove the assertion that Apple had the most profitable year in human history? How about just in modern history? How is this measured? percentage of GNP? By percentage of human wealth? You don't think there were more profitable enterprises, say the Spanish collection of gold from the new world, ones that had the benefit of slave labor that might have had a better year? How about Standard Oil under Rockefeller at the turn of the century (he is considered the richest man in modern history with over 660B 2007 dollars.)

 

Congratulations, I herby award *you* the "stupid comment of the thread award."

post #58 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

 

Ok, how about "most profitable calendar year in history since companies kept records of their financials"? 

 

Well, No, it's not anywhere near good enough for me and I doubt it greatly.

 

My point is that people are swallowing whole this "most profitable in human history" meme without even examining it. I think it's *very* unlikely that the claim is true. There have been many enterprises that have been incredibly profitable and when compared properly I doubt Apple is the one on top. As I mentioned earlier, Rockefeller was worth over 660B 2007 dollars. I doubt he got that way because Standard Oil was anemic in the profit category. Imagine having a monopoly on oil. Then there's the mining stupendous quantities of gold from certain mines in the Black Hills over a very short period of time (pretty fracking profitable in it's time.) If people are just looking at dollar amounts without adjusting them for inflation, it's a pretty meaningless metric.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

 

Ok, how about "most profitable calendar year in history since companies kept records of their financials"? Would that be good enough for you? Do we really need to go back to babylonian times to make the obvious point, which is that Apple is more successful than it's ever been, than any company in recent history has been, and that predicting doom is based on absolutely nothing?


Edited by DESuserIGN - 2/28/13 at 10:12pm
post #59 of 64

I disagree that Apple is going to have a tough 2 years. Tim Cook runs Apple like a machine, a relentless, merciless machine :) And he will make it more and more efficient until the competitors have a tough time competing. All those people who worry about Apple not having a product that people in the developing world can afford, rest assured that with the master of efficiency at the helm, the iPhone will be as cheap as it humanly can be.

 

And remember Apple invented the tablet market (the workable one at least) without which many people in such countries would not be able to have a computer *at all*.

post #60 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

 

Well, No, it's not anywhere near good enough for me and I doubt it greatly.

 

My point is that people are swallowing whole this "most profitable in human history" meme without even examining it. I think it's *very* unlikely that the claim is true. There have been many enterprises that have been incredibly profitable and when compared properly I doubt Apple is the one on top. As I mentioned earlier, Rockefeller was worth over 660B 2007 dollars. I doubt he got that way because Standard Oil was anemic in the profit category. Imagine having a monopoly on oil. Then there's the mining stupendous quantities of gold from certain mines in the Black Hills over a very short period of time (pretty fracking profitable in it's time.) If people are just looking at dollar amounts without adjusting them for inflation, it's a pretty meaningless metric.

 

Forget Rockefeller then, do you remember when Grog had two wives and an obsidian tipped spear, and the rest of the village had only one wife and just wooden clubs?

post #61 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post



Well, No, it's not anywhere near good enough for me and I doubt it greatly.

My point is that people are swallowing whole this "most profitable in human history" meme without even examining it. I think it's *very* unlikely that the claim is true. There have been many enterprises that have been incredibly profitable and when compared properly I doubt Apple is the one on top. As I mentioned earlier, Rockefeller was worth over 660B 2007 dollars. I doubt he got that way because Standard Oil was anemic in the profit category. Imagine having a monopoly on oil. Then there's the mining stupendous quantities of gold from certain mines in the Black Hills over a very short period of time (pretty fracking profitable in it's time.) If people are just looking at dollar amounts without adjusting them for inflation, it's a pretty meaningless metric.

Unadjusted for inflation. Why is it meaningless? They made more raw money than any other company.
post #62 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post


Analysts always have horrible expectations for Apple... then BAM... $13 billion in profit. There are still plenty of fortunes for Apple.

I wonder what it's like to be an analyst for a company like HTC... a company that has lost a lot lately.

 

Which quarter has HTC lost money?  I don't recall one....  Sure, they've fallen from their peak, but they're still doing better than many others...  

post #63 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Satorical View Post

At this point Apple could sell an iPhone to every last Chinese citizen, and analysts would still shrug. Idiots.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

I'm getting fed up with these a$$hats.  They are totally trying to seed FUD to manipulate AAPL.  Apple is making boatloads of cash, will have even more in the bank in two years, yet these clowns keep thinking that Apple's best years are behind it.

Shame the SEC doesn't clamp down on this.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleOwn View Post

I would like to opt out of all articles that contain the word "analyst". Is there a way to filter the RSS stream from this site?

 

I'm not trying to only hear the good news, but this isn't even news. Nobody can predict the next two years in tech.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

A fairy tale. A silly one at that.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post

Are all of these analysts colluding/conspiring to push the price of AAPL down as far as possible to create the greatest rubberband effect possible?

 

I mean, talk about everyone jumping on the bandwagon.....all at the same time.

People before: you can also choose to not read. That's what I was told when i complained about the cheap-ass articles about "special prices on Apple gear".

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by NormM View Post


You do understand that Apple made a profit of over $1 billion per week this past quarter? Since the earth only had about 200 million people on it in the year 1 AD, that's about $2000 per person per year, if the population were still the same. For comparison, the GDP per capita in ancient Rome, in equivalent year-2000 international dollars (based on $US purchasing power parities and the average value of commodities), was less than $1000.

In general, world markets are so much larger today that there is no possibility that any company in the ancient world was large compared to the biggest companies today. World population hit 1 billion people for the first time around the year 1800. We have good records of the size of companies since then.

NormM: adjusted for inflation, the most profitable company ever is still the VOC, otherwise known as "the dutch east india company". I'll admit it is an edge case.

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply
post #64 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeb85 View Post

Which quarter has HTC lost money?  I don't recall one....  Sure, they've fallen from their peak, but they're still doing better than many others...  

I never said HTC has lost money... I just said they've lost a lot.

Yes... HTC has fallen from their peak. And now 6 months since I posted that comment... times are getting even worse for HTC.

There are warnings that HTC might actually have an operating loss in Q3 2013. And their profit is already down 89% from the previous year.

But I never meant to single-out HTC... I said companies like HTC. There's that saying "there are only two companies making money in mobile... Samsung and Apple"

In the general sense... that is true. Samsung and Apple, two companies, are making 95% of the profit of the entire industry. And that last 5% is split among dozens of companies.

You're right though... HTC is making money for now... but who knows if they will in 3 years.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AAPL Investors
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Apple may need $137B cash hoard to weather 'very rough' next two years, analyst says