or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Notes of interest from Apple's Q1 2014 conference call
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Notes of interest from Apple's Q1 2014 conference call - Page 3

post #81 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Pay me $400M and I'll tell you how.

Quote:
Originally Posted by marubeni View Post

He doesn't have to tell you. He is not being paid the big bucks to do their jobs, they are.

Both cop outs by lazy "thinkers". If you knew anything, you'd be running multi billion dollar company. Guys, it's easy to play with Monopoly money.
post #82 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

People are caterwauling on both sides of the fence, and not looking at the real picture here.

I am not responding to any specific comment, but I believe that Cook and Oppenheimer have failed terribly.

Not because they haven't grown the business. Not because they don't have serious innovations in the pipeline. Not because they're not passionate about the company or its products or its customers. Not because they aren't anything but superb managers of many aspects of the business. Not because they're disengaged from value creation. None of these.

I've said this many times before and will say it again. They're incredibly poor in conveying their sense of the future of the business, and more importantly, managing market expectations.

Let me explain. If I am a working-my-butt-off manager at Apple that delivered the incredible feat of selling 51M in iPhone sales last quarter, I am probably pretty pissed off and dejected tonight. My stock lost $45 per share in value. Why? The market expected me to deliver 55M. Just casually, as though 51M involved no blood, sweat, tears. And nobody out there, least of all Apple's senior leaders such as Cook and Oppenheimer, bothered to stick their necks out to try and manage or talk down such ridiculous expectations.

If you've spent half a day working for a real business, you'll know that there's nothing that can be more demoralizing.

That, in my book, is a major leadership failure on their part. Inexcusable.
What is Cook supposed to do? Come out and say that Wall Street's estimates are wildly inaccurate? How exactly could/should Cook have managed expectations? And what exactly should Cook be saying about the future? Apple is never going spill details on future products. People need to stop expecting that.

See post #73 above.
post #83 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Pay me $400M and I'll tell you how.

Quote:
Originally Posted by marubeni View Post

He doesn't have to tell you. He is not being paid the big bucks to do their jobs, they are.

Both cop outs by lazy "thinkers". If you knew anything, you'd be running multi billion dollar company. Guys, it's easy to play with Monopoly money.

Yeah, because I criticized an omelette, I'd have to be laying an egg too. How stupid smart. lol.gif
post #84 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by marubeni View Post
 

 

He obviously meant that AAPL is not a growth stock anymore. You can agree or disagree, but don't change the subject.

 

I didn't change the subject.  I pointed to one specific sentence that he said... "Apple stock is now virtually the same as IBM and Microsoft".   If he had just said that Apple is not currently a growth stock, I would've agreed with him.  You'll notice I made no reply to the rest of his comment.

 

However, comparing Apple stock to IBM or Microsoft is foolish when you consider Apple's history of releasing disruptive products and where they are currently sitting in their product cycles as compared to IBM and Microsoft who are much smaller companies where IBM is entrenched in a different sub-industry from Apple and Microsoft has struggled to get traction in the same industry.

 

The comparison to IBM is so incredibly invalid that there's not much else to say about it.  But compared to Microsoft, as far as the stock, Apple will cycle through periods of growth and slow downs, but as long as it continues to do what it has been doing for a long time now, it will see overall growth that outperforms the market.  During the slow-downs it will rely on the benefits of a strong cash position and earnings.  This differs greatly from Microsoft where the benefits of its position have been wasted on business units that lose billions (Kin, Surface, Bing, etc...).  The net result of this is a stock that has stagnated and is almost half of what it was at its peak in 1999.

 

BTW: Both of you could add a little more to this community by growing up a little and stopping with the personal insults.

post #85 of 112

I had no great expectations that after hours trading would be any different than what it is.  

 

Still, you'd think anyone criticizing Apple (for what ever shortcomings they perceive) could have long realized that they're in the 'Tock' segment of the iPhone product cycle.

 

Even with that, the iPhone 5S has still leap-frogged the cell phone industry with 64-bit SoC's (that will have far more 64-bit software in place once they incorporate (or need) system RAM to best utilize it) and fingerprint sensors that (I would guess) won't see the same level of *maturity* (including 64-bit system software) until 2015 (if that) from their Android competitors.   I'm still wondering how SoC's in Android devices can mature, if they're already running at a 2.2 GHz clock rate.  It wouldn't seem like there's much more headroom (if you want to take battery performance and heat issues into consideration), while the A7's 1.4 GHz clock rate handily beats them in single threaded performance and is relatively close in multi-threaded performance.    I can only imagine the performance comparison if the clock rates (and system RAM) were identical on both devices.

 

Anyone can criticize all they want, but Apple made no pronouncements of a game changing product in 2013.  From the after hours trading, you'd think they were waking from a six month hibernation (and are just realizing the potential of the products announced in that time period), despite having a record quarter.  [Just WHAT kind of profits were they expecting???  And what other companies have the same high expectations, much less can surpass such unreasonable ones annually?]   Apple has inferred that 2014 is the year to wait for a game changing product (and with that the next iteration of the iPhone).   So, wait another year before unleashing another torrent of vitriol, though I would be far more grateful to see a game changing product from any naysayers (much less the level of mature integration on a variety of fronts (hastily copied by Apple's competitor's)) that will effortlessly bring about profits exceeding Apple's 2014 First Quarter Results.

 

Even if we're here again commenting on Apple's 2015 First Quarter Results, I'd much rather see a thoughtful, mature, game-changing product from ANY Apple competitor -- though I'd be surprised if that happens.  


Edited by nonimus - 1/27/14 at 8:07pm
post #86 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by marubeni View Post
 

 

You have NO idea what you are talking about.

 

thanks. the depth of your reasoning is stunning.

post #87 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


You do realize that very few people want a larger iPhone. Globally the response to the large Androids has been very cool to say the least.

 

Some surveys would beg to differ. Significant shift towards large screen sizes by Android users.

 

https://d28wbuch0jlv7v.cloudfront.net/images/infografik/normal/ChartOfTheDay_1396_Android_phone_sales_by_screen_size_n.jpg

post #88 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by macslut View Post


BTW: Both of you could add a little more to this community by growing up a little and stopping with the personal insults.

When someone willfully misrepresents or is casually dismissive of thoughtful points (even if that person might disagree), all is fair game.

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
post #89 of 112
Quote:
 With an average of 418 stores, average revenue was $16.7 billion, up from $16.3 billion a year prior.

 

Can't possibly be right, unless I'm misunderstanding the wording. 

 

If we're to take the average of 418 stores and multiply that by the "average revenue" of $16.7 billion, that suggests Apple had revenue, from its retail stores alone, of $6.98 trillion. 

 

Is the second "average" not supposed to be there, or should it be "million" (though that may be low, as it suggests store revenue is only about $7 billion, and I think Apple said it derives a higher share of its revenue from the stores than that)?

post #90 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Yeah, because I criticized an omelette, I'd have to be laying an egg too. How stupid smart. lol.gif

Yes but if you criticize an omelette , you can sure make suggestions to improve it or you can cook one yourself. It's called constructive criticism. It's a lot more helpful rather than being a whiny ...
post #91 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


If the argument is that flat profits = no growth then how does one explain Amazon which basically has been running profitless for 17 years?

 

Yeah, profits are widely misunderstood around here. Amazon is "profitless" because it SPENDS all the money that would otherwise BE PROFITS on warehouse expansion, market share, publicity stunts, maybe FedEx if you believe the rumors, etc. Apple has lots of profits, but unless Apple's managers say either (a) we found some specific great ideas to invest in or (b) we're giving the money back to shareholders, investors are not wrong to wonder where the growth will come from. I think Apple's secrecy (which is very deeply ingrained) works against it on the stock market. 

post #92 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlor View Post
 

 

Yeah, profits are widely misunderstood around here. Amazon is "profitless" because it SPENDS all the money that would otherwise BE PROFITS on warehouse expansion, market share, publicity stunts, maybe FedEx if you believe the rumors, etc. Apple has lots of profits, but unless Apple's managers say either (a) we found some specific great ideas to invest in or (b) we're giving the money back to shareholders, investors are not wrong to wonder where the growth will come from. I think Apple's secrecy (which is very deeply ingrained) works against it on the stock market. 

this is classic Wall Street hype. "someday!" but Amazon is a discount retailer, all the other stuff is a sideline. maybe someday it will equal or surpass Walmart, which would make it #1 - wow, what a future! so let's check reality (all from Yahoo Finance):

 

Walmart total year revenue: $475 billion with profit margin of 3.6% = net income to Common $17 billion, market cap of $240B, P/E 14.3.

 

Amazon total year revenue: $70 billion with profit margin of 0.2%% = net income to Common $0.13 billion, market cap of $177B, P/E 1400.0!

 

so Walmart sales are 6.5X Amazon, and its profits are 140X Amazon - yeah, lots of room for "growth" there!!! - but its market cap is only 1.4X Amazon's amazingly high value. well of course, Walmart hasn't been a "growth" stock for many years, but we all know Amazon will rule the world "someday."

 

folks if you don't see the market scam going on here (the smart guys there know), you must believe in the famous Wall Street tooth fairy. 

 

for comparison, Apple total year revenue: $171 billion with profit margin of 22% = net income to Common $37 billion, market cap of $495B, P/E 13.9.

 

being in the premium hardware business instead of discount retail, Apple generates 2.2X the profits of Walmart even tho Walmart revenues are 2.7X of Apple's. but the P/E of both is very close, which makes good sense for a solid "investment" - not growth - stock.

 

i hope all the speculators here posing as investors, and all the growth stock hypesters bewailing Apple's maturity as 'just another' massive and massively successful giant corporation sink all their life savings into Amazon tomorrow. i'm sure "someday" you will get in return exactly what you deserve! believe!!

post #93 of 112
Ok, the profit and revenue beat the top line guidence, so the stock tank on numbers of iphone sold, shy of a few millions by idiots who didn't know China didn't start delivering the phones til Jamuary. These are the numbers before the end of last quarter. Why the funds or retail investors believe in analysts rather than the company's guidances? Similar in believing a cheap iphone and iwatch? Where Tim Cook already said it is an interesting product but nobody will wear watches and nonprescription glasses. People don't know how to think anymore.
post #94 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post
 

this is classic Wall Street hype. "someday!" but Amazon is a discount retailer, all the other stuff is a sideline. maybe someday it will equal or surpass Walmart, which would make it #1 - wow, what a future! so let's check reality (all from Yahoo Finance):

 

Walmart total year revenue: $475 billion with profit margin of 3.6% = net income to Common $17 billion, market cap of $240B, P/E 14.3.

 

Amazon total year revenue: $70 billion with profit margin of 0.2%% = net income to Common $0.13 billion, market cap of $177B, P/E 1400.0!

 

so Walmart sales are 6.5X Amazon, and its profits are 140X Amazon - yeah, lots of room for "growth" there!!! - but its market cap is only 1.4X Amazon's amazingly high value. well of course, Walmart hasn't been a "growth" stock for many years, but we all know Amazon will rule the world "someday."

 

folks if you don't see the market scam going on here (the smart guys there know), you must believe in the famous Wall Street tooth fairy. 

 

for comparison, Apple total year revenue: $171 billion with profit margin of 22% = net income to Common $37 billion, market cap of $495B, P/E 13.9.

 

being in the premium hardware business instead of discount retail, Apple generates 2.2X the profits of Walmart even tho Walmart revenues are 2.7X of Apple's. but the P/E of both is very close, which makes good sense for a solid "investment" - not growth - stock.

 

i hope all the speculators here posing as investors, and all the growth stock hypesters bewailing Apple's maturity as 'just another' massive and massively successful giant corporation sink all their life savings into Amazon tomorrow. i'm sure "someday" you will get in return exactly what you deserve! believe!!

Well, AMZN quarterly revenue growth (all numbers year/on/year)  is 23.8%, apple's is 4.2%, while Apple's earnings growth is -8.8%. Walmart's quarterly revenue growth is 1.7%, earnings growth is 2.8%. So, while AMZN's P/E ratio is certainly not very attractive, you will admit that it is a more compelling growth story than either Apple or Walmart. If AMZN can sustain these numbers, it will overtake Walmart in 15 years, but really much sooner, since it will eat up WMT's market share as it is growing. So, if you don't like it don't buy it (I don't), but there is certainly a growth story there (and notice that growing at this rate is quite impressive for a fifteen year old company).

post #95 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by water cooler View Post

Ok, the profit and revenue beat the top line guidence, so the stock tank on numbers of iphone sold, shy of a few millions by idiots who didn't know China didn't start delivering the phones til Jamuary. These are the numbers before the end of last quarter. Why the funds or retail investors believe in analysts rather than the company's guidances? Similar in believing a cheap iphone and iwatch? Where Tim Cook already said it is an interesting product but nobody will wear watches and nonprescription glasses. People don't know how to think anymore.

Unlike you, some people know how to listen, and they hear Apple's depressing guidance for next quarter. (yes, Apple's, not those nefarious analysts')

post #96 of 112
Originally Posted by marubeni View Post
Unlike you, some people know how to listen, and they hear Apple's depressing guidance for next quarter. (yes, Apple's, not those nefarious analysts')

 

So how’s it depressing?

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #97 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlor View Post
 

 

Yeah, profits are widely misunderstood around here. Amazon is "profitless" because it SPENDS all the money that would otherwise BE PROFITS on warehouse expansion, market share, publicity stunts, maybe FedEx if you believe the rumors, etc. Apple has lots of profits, but unless Apple's managers say either (a) we found some specific great ideas to invest in or (b) we're giving the money back to shareholders, investors are not wrong to wonder where the growth will come from. I think Apple's secrecy (which is very deeply ingrained) works against it on the stock market. 

 

Also: While if you believe that AMZN is competing with WMT, it is very much a "startup", it is completely dominant in online retail, and has killed off whole industries (Borders, anyone? Remember that Borders and Barnes and Noble killed off independent book sellers, and then were killed off (almost, in the case of B&N) by Amazon.) Apple, though people here like its products, is in a very competitive marketplace, and a single disruptive product from one of its (quite well-funded) competitors could mean real trouble, so it has to work very hard just to stay ahead by a nose. When Jobs was in charge, people, rightly or wrongly, believed that he would nurture some way cool product and then market the daylights out of it, but that confidence is absent with Tim Cook and his team. Are people wrong about Tim and Co? Quite possible, but the proof of that is still to come -- every single one of Apple's products dates back to Jobs (yes, they have been improved). Now, one may argue that two years is not a very long time, but still, the burden of proof remains on Cook.

post #98 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by tkell31 View Post
 

A well trained monkey could have taken over Apple and produced better results.

Would you like a banana then?

post #99 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by marubeni View Post
 

Well, AMZN quarterly revenue growth (all numbers year/on/year)  is 23.8%, apple's is 4.2%, while Apple's earnings growth is -8.8%. Walmart's quarterly revenue growth is 1.7%, earnings growth is 2.8%. So, while AMZN's P/E ratio is certainly not very attractive, you will admit that it is a more compelling growth story than either Apple or Walmart. If AMZN can sustain these numbers, it will overtake Walmart in 15 years, but really much sooner, since it will eat up WMT's market share as it is growing. So, if you don't like it don't buy it (I don't), but there is certainly a growth story there (and notice that growing at this rate is quite impressive for a fifteen year old company).

 

Amazon may well well grow rapidly in revenue. BUT it is in an inevitably low-margin business - mercilessly price competitive discount retail. so it can never generate profits at the same rate as Apple. at best it can hope to match Walmart's margins. that's not bad, but it's not great either.

 

the scam part of this is that "the market" - Wall Street hypsters - has already pushed up Amazon's stock price to a level as if it actually has already achieved such a future expectation, a point where only that level of completed growth could justify that price for the long term. suckers are paying a price for Amazon now that won't make "investment" sense for years ... or worse case, never. if something goes badly wrong for Amazon, that bubble will certainly pop.

 

if you want to "invest" in growth stocks and reap big rewards after several years of rapid growth, you already missed the boat for both Apple and Amazon. you should have bought Amazon at $50 in 2009, or Apple at $85 in 2008. their big price run ups are over. you need to spot the next one.

post #100 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlor View Post

Yeah, profits are widely misunderstood around here. Amazon is "profitless" because it SPENDS all the money that would otherwise BE PROFITS on warehouse expansion, market share, publicity stunts, maybe FedEx if you believe the rumors, etc. Apple has lots of profits, but unless Apple's managers say either (a) we found some specific great ideas to invest in or (b) we're giving the money back to shareholders, investors are not wrong to wonder where the growth will come from. I think Apple's secrecy (which is very deeply ingrained) works against it on the stock market. 
Ah yes the typical Amazon spin, that they could be profitable but just choose not to be - for 17 years! How many other companies could get away with not showing profits for so many years? I mean it's not like other companies don't spend on R&D, market expansion, etc. To hear Amazon defenders talk you'd think there's no company like them ever in the history of corporations.
post #101 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by tkell31 View Post
 

EPS is only up because they retired shares, net revenue didn't change at all year over year.  Apple stock is now virtually the same as IBM and MSFT.  EPS growth will be manufactured by buying back shares, increase the dividend, and slowly move the stock price up.

 

Certainly not the worst scenario, but should be enough to get Cook fired unless Apple is happy treading water.

 

But my guess is we'll be treated to another year of Cook talking about all the great things in the pipeline which never seem to materialize.

 

Who would be a better fit at Apple then? And don't just say anyone would. How about a name. Apple will never be the same as when Steve was running the company. That doesn't mean that Tim sucks as a CEO, but if you're looking for another Steve Jobs you won't find one so you might as well sell your stock now if thats what you're thinking. And BTW...Tim was running the company even when Apple was doing well, and Steve was still here. 

 

What products aren't materializing? Is it AppleTV? Even Steve Jobs didn't get that out the door and he has been trying for ages to get it out the door. 

post #102 of 112
Why do people say Tim was running the company when Steve was there? Are they talking about the last few months? Not much of an argument.

Also since this is the "notes of interest" story, did they say anything about the Apple TV and sales?
Edited by asdasd - 1/28/14 at 7:58am
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #103 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Why do people say Time was running the company when Steve was there? Are they talking about the last few months? Not much of an argument.

Also since this is the "notes of interest" story, did they say anything about the Apple TV and sales?

 

Because there were a few times when Tim was running Apple. It wasn't just the last few months before Steve's death. 

 

What I don't get is how some people are fully against Tim Cook, like they thought he would be the next Steve Jobs. IMO, you'll never find another Steve Jobs and Apple CAN function without Steve Jobs. Its doing so right now with record sales of nearly everything and some of the highest profits its ever had. If Tim isn't doing a very good job then why is Apple having $13 Billion profits? Why are reporting record sales of their products in a time where other retailers are struggling to report sales and profits that met last years. 

 

Ask yourself this question, if Steve were still running Apple and they reported the same results and guidance, would it be time for Steve to leave? Would there be this rage against Steve Jobs like there is Tim Cook? I bet people like tkell31 wouldn't be here ranting on about how much Steve Jobs sucks and should be forced out at Apple. And yes, I know he's not so don't reply back and say this is irrelevant. Thats not the point I was trying to make. 


Edited by macxpress - 1/28/14 at 6:01am
post #104 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


Ah yes the typical Amazon spin, that they could be profitable but just choose not to be - for 17 years! How many other companies could get away with not showing profits for so many years? I mean it's not like other companies don't spend on R&D, market expansion, etc. To hear Amazon defenders talk you'd think there's no company like them ever in the history of corporations.

 

I am not an Amazon "defender", but from your very own words, it is absolutely true that there has never been a company like Amazon -- who has been willing to not make any money for decades to feed their plan of world domination, whole being accepted by the investment community (and making the founder and many of the employees very wealthy people). Again, this is not a value judgement, just a fact (and no, I don't own amazon stock, and yes, I buy 80% of my consumer goods from them).

post #105 of 112
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post
Why do people say Tim was running the company when Steve was there? Are they talking about the last few months? Not much of an argument.

 

Because he ran the company in a large sense from 2009 to 2011 while Steve had cancer and ran it as CEO as far back as 2004.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #106 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post
 

Every time Tim Cook uses the word ‘incredible’, the stock seems to drop 10 points.

 

I agree.

 

"Insanely great" would be much better than "incredible."

post #107 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by marubeni View Post

Are you completely dense? Their revenue is DECLINING, and their guidance is 10% below estimates. Are you whelmed yet?

No, Apple's revenue is increasing, as you know.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #108 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by marubeni View Post

Well, AMZN quarterly revenue growth (all numbers year/on/year)  is 23.8%, apple's is 4.2%, while Apple's earnings growth is -8.8%. Walmart's quarterly revenue growth is 1.7%, earnings growth is 2.8%. So, while AMZN's P/E ratio is certainly not very attractive, you will admit that it is a more compelling growth story than either Apple or Walmart. If AMZN can sustain these numbers, it will overtake Walmart in 15 years, but really much sooner, since it will eat up WMT's market share as it is growing. So, if you don't like it don't buy it (I don't), but there is certainly a growth story there (and notice that growing at this rate is quite impressive for a fifteen year old company).

Once again, your numbers bear no relation to reality.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #109 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

Once again, your numbers bear no relation to reality.

Seems accurate to me.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #110 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Seems accurate to me.

Amazon's revenue growth was 20.3%, not 23.8%. Apple's revenue growth was 6%, not 4.2%. Not accurate, asdasd.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #111 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post


Once again, your numbers bear no relation to reality.

 

Yahoo! Finance begs to disagree.

post #112 of 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post


No, Apple's revenue is increasing, as you know, little liar.

 

First, you haven't earned the right to condescend to anyone. Second:

I meant earnings, actually (revenues are creeping up at around 1% a year when adjusted for inflation, not what I would call robust growth) here is an analysis from a post by sog35:

 

 I'm talking about EPS. Last 4 quarters including 12.31.13 Qtr:14.50 - 12.31.138.26 - 09.30.137.47 -06.30.1310.09 - 03.31.13 Total = 40.32 Previous 4 Qtrs13.81 - 12.31.128.67 - 09.30.129.32 - 06.30.1212.30 - 03.31.12 Total = 44.10 Calender year 2012 EPS = 44.10Calender year 2013 EPS = 40.32Profit decline = 8.57% And if you take the buyback into consideration (Apple has bought back about 5%) then its down about 10%

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AAPL Investors
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Notes of interest from Apple's Q1 2014 conference call