or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › RBC downgrades Apple to 'Underperform', slashes target to $70
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

RBC downgrades Apple to 'Underperform', slashes target to $70

post #1 of 56
Thread Starter 
The Royal Bank of Canada cut its price target on shares of Apple friday to $70 from $125 and also downgraded the stock to 'Underperform' on concerns of reduced earnings growth as well as uncertainty about the company's leadership.

In a report to clients, analyst Mike Abramsky said he's uncomfortable with Apple chief executive Steve Jobs' unexpected leave of absence, which raises questions about near term leadership, as the company has failed to articulate a clear succession plan.

"Jobs is widely viewed as Apple's chief innovator, dealmaker, leader, deeply involved in minute decisions, inextricably tied to Apple's brand," he wrote. "Jobs' being sidelined for 6 months or more and unavailable day-to-day -- with no clear successor -- in our view raises risks to Apple's sustaining its stellar record of innovation going forward."

Abramsky also cited data from his firm's proprietary Changewave survey released thursday, which indicates further deterioration in consumer electronics spending over the next 90 days. More specifically, it showed that only 28% of respondents are planning to purchase a Mac notebook in the next three months, down from 33% in November, and just 30% planned to buy iPhone 3G this past December, down from 34% in September.

Mac (left) and iPhone (right) buying intentions over the next 90 days.

"Beyond near-term issues (lowered EPS estimates, deterioration in consumer spending and the leadership void) and pending evidence to the contrary, we believe it is prudent to adopt a more conservative approach to the target valuation multiple," he advised clients. "Including a 'Steve Jobs' premium and cash ($27.07 per share), Apple had been trading at 17x, but could correct towards the market (Nasdaq at 13x, PC/wireless peers at 10-12x)."

Shares of Apple were trading down $2.287 (or 2.74%) to $81.093 on the Nasdaq stock market.
post #2 of 56
I will close my account at RBC today. Morons.
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
Use duckduckgo.com with Safari, not Google Search
Been using Apples since 1978 and Macs since 1984
Long on AAPL so biased. Strong advocate for separation of technology and politics on AI.
Reply
post #3 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I will close my account at RBC today. Morons.

I smell an analyst who is trying to make a killing by selling short. The opposite of "pump and dump" is "hump and dump."
post #4 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by megatrick View Post

I smell an analyst who is trying to make a killing by selling short. The opposite of "pump and dump" is "hump and dump."

I agree.
post #5 of 56
Quote:
The Royal Bank of Canada cut its price target on shares of Apple friday to $70 from $125 and also downgraded the stock to 'Underperform' on concerns of reduced earnings growth as well as uncertainty about the company's leadership.

In a report to clients, analyst Mike Abramsky said he's uncomfortable with Apple chief executive Steve Jobs' unexpected leave of absence, which raises questions about near term leadership, as the company has failed to articulate a clear succession plan.

"Jobs is widely viewed as Apple's chief innovator, dealmaker, leader, deeply involved in minute decisions, inextricably tied to Apple's brand," he wrote. "Jobs' being sidelined for 6 months or more and unavailable day-to-day -- with no clear successor -- in our view raises risks to Apple's sustaining its stellar record of innovation going forward."


There are many reasons for the shares of Apple to be downgraded to a price target of $70. Here are a few reasons:


1- There are no reasons, absolutely no reasons, for Apple to carry a higher valuation or higher multiple for its shares than competing companies listed on the NASDQ Stock Exchange;

2- Appple's growth is slowing down as evidenced by unofficial sales numbers for Macs and iPhones over the last 2 months;

3- Steve Jobs was last seen in public in October 2008 which seems to correlate with no new product launches since October 2008, except for the 17 inch MacBook Pro launched at MacWorld 2009;

4- The product portfolio of Apple carries outdated, one year old, technology, as evidenced by the absence of quad-core Penryn or quad-core Core i7 desktop processors in both the iMac and the MacMini, and the failure to update the iMac and MacMini with new nVidia graphic chipsets;

5- Apple doesn't sell a business desktop computer and, since it switched over to Intel, doesn't have a desktop consumer or family iMac with a desktop microprocessor, opting instead to use a lower powered, mobile dual-core microprocessor for the iMac which developped into an anorexic thin computer for no reason at all;

6- The AppleTV is still a joke instead of the home media server it should be, whereas HP has just launched a Mac compatible home media server for homes with extensive media collections and multiple computers;

7- iTunes is still limited to a store front, playing only what was bought on the iTunes store, especially the low quality 128 kbps .m4a music tracks sold through the iTunes store, whereas buyers can get unprotected 320 kbps music tracks everywhere else on the internet;

8- iTunes cannot be used to play high quality lossless audio formats like .flac, .ape and .wv because iTunes is not the general purpose media player it should be;

9- Apple doesn't have a public hardware product roadmap for Mac and iPhone upgrades, only a secret one, which prevents companies and IT departments from getting budget approvals for buying new Macs;

10- Apple insists on making a fat 35% profit margin on its hardware sales while its competitors reduced their profit margins from 18% to a slim 9% like Dell to increase their market share and make more money from selling more computers;

11- Apple doesn't use the latest technology in its computers or iPhones, yet demands prices that are $300 to $500 higher than its competitors which offer the latest technology like quad-core CPUs;

12- While Tim Cook is a solid choice to replace Steve Jobs, Steve Jobs hangs on to his CEO title (and salary, stock options and other perks), while he could limit his role to President of the Board of directors, making for a clear transfer of powers and leadership;

13- Unlike actor Patrick Swayze who made public his battle against pancreas cancer through a Barbara Walters TV interview, 53 year old Steve Jobs has shrouded in secrecy his own condition and been less than candid at every turn so that there is no confidence that he will ever resume his CEO and President functions at Apple;

14- The numbing silence of the Apple Board of directors is an indication of how serious the health condition of CEO Steve Jobs is, for otherwise the Board would have provided investors with regular updates on Steve Jobs' health without fear of class action lawsuits for misleading investors;

15- While Tim Cook is a solid choice to replace Steve Jobs, he would appear to be too much like Steve Jobs, insisting on 35% profit margins while blocking the use of the latest technology in Apple computers and iPhones as a cost saving, and profit increasing, measure.

16- Apple was considered to be a speculative stock by hedge fund managers who bought hundreds of millions of shares and counted on continued double digit 35% returns based on higher than average selling prices for Macs and iPhones and higher than average sales growth from quarter to quarter, two conditions that Apple can no longer meet in a recession where higher priced Macs stay on store shelves.


The Intel Core i7 quad-core desktop microprocessor was officially introduced on November 17, 2008. See:

Intel unleashes Core i7, beats itself @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40213/135/

Core i7 PCs launch with prices from $1250 to $13,000 @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40227/135/


The Core 2 Quad Q6600 65 nm desktop CPU has been available for $266 since November 2007, and $224 since April 20, 2008. See:

- Intel to cut 65 nm quad-core processor prices for 45 nm @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/36136/139/

- Intel drops second quad-core CPU into the mainstream @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/37038/135/

- Have quad-core processors arrived in the mainstream? @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/36548/135/

- Intel adds cheap dual-core, quad-core @ http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/39135/135/


post #6 of 56
Quote:
"Beyond near-term issues (lowered EPS estimates, deterioration in consumer spending and the leadership void) and pending evidence to the contrary, we believe it is prudent to adopt a more conservative approach to the target valuation multiple," he advised clients. "Including a 'Steve Jobs' premium and cash ($27.07 per share), Apple had been trading at 17x, but could correct towards the market (Nasdaq at 13x, PC/wireless peers at 10-12x)."

Shares of Apple were trading down $2.287 (or 2.74%) to $81.093 on the Nasdaq stock market.


RBC is my bank, the largest in Canada and, in most respects, a no nonsense bank. No flimsy evaluations where Apple stock has a target price of $235, $240 or $250 within the next 12 months.

At long last, stock analysts who analyse.


post #7 of 56
I think the pure ignorance of RBC here to think that Steve didn't have product refreshes already lined up and in work for the next 6 months is astounding. Who here thinks Apple doesn't know what and roughly when they are going to release things over the next 6 months? I will almost guarantee you they know exactly what they have planned and are probably already well into work on the next iPod updates.

It's a shame how people think a company can't function without one person - albiet a very powerful, influential person. Apple is more than Steve and Steve knows that.

Also, you think all that time with Steve hasn't worn off on Cook and Schiller and a number of other higher ups? I'd bet 99% of the time they know what he's going to say about a given product - it's just that they don't look quite as good in black turtlenecks and aren't quite as accomplished actors on stage that's all.
post #8 of 56
Ah, the worms are starting to come out. 70? ...really? Whats the P/E ratio they have to justify this?
post #9 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan View Post

At long last, stock analysts who analyse.



You seem to know about as much as this analyst does, which is zilcho. No wonder that you think he 'analyzes'.

Mind explaining to us how exactly the "Steve Jobs premium" was 5X earnings, or do you know the orifice that he pulled it out of?
post #10 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan View Post

RBC is my bank, the largest in Canada and, in most respects, a no nonsense bank. No flimsy evaluations where Apple stock has a target price of $235, $240 or $250 within the next 12 months.

I agree.

I believe that APPL will be nearer to $70 than $240 in 12 months time. The economy isn't going to recover for several years, Steve Jobs or not.
post #11 of 56
I invested in Apple in 2000, and held my shares until 2 d ago. I sold along the way, bought along the way, but 2 d ago, I needed the money and decided to leave.
I did not lose much overall, but to me this whole thing feels like gambling...
The same way you try to memorize which cards were played and likelihood of success and yada yada... Here you're trying not only to predict the company's future performance, which will be fine, but how the stock will move which is affected by feelings more than science...
I decided it is no longer worth it to participate in this charade... Maybe I just suck at it...
post #12 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

I agree.

I believe that APPL will be nearer to $70 than $240 in 12 months time. The economy isn't going to recover for several years, Steve Jobs or not.

That's not really the question. The question is do you think in 12 months time it'll be closer to 70 or 125? I'm almost 100% sure it's 125 given the fact that last time Cook stepped in the stock took a big hit at first and then the company did really well and the stock went up again. People are just freakin out and not thinking logically (what exactly are you paying an analyst for if all he/she does is use emotions to guide their predictions?)
post #13 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Including a 'Steve Jobs' premium and cash ($27.07 per share), Apple had been trading at 17x, but could correct towards the market (Nasdaq at 13x, PC/wireless peers at 10-12x).

By their formula, the stock should be

5.36 * 13 + 27.07 = 96.75

The problems with their reasoning:
1. EPS this quarter will be a blowout, I think it will be 2.30/share for the quarter coming up.
2. EPS growth is much larger than any of those "peers", so it deserves are larger multiple
3. No debt, Nasdaq average company has a bunch of debt.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #14 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by obs1970 View Post

I did not lose much overall, but to me this whole thing feels like gambling...

That's because it is gambling. I too bought into Apple in 1999 and 2000, when I knew from the technical side that they had winning products and winning leadership. After 4 years I finally gave up on the market ever figuring this out and sold at a wash. Then everyone else suddenly clued in and it skyrocketed. Not because Apple was suddenly 5x better company than it had been, but because the "analysts" finally clued in after having their heads up their butts for years.

Now it's the same thing in reverse. Tim Cook has been running Apple day-to-day for over a year, but these "analysts" are claiming there is no leadership now. This makes investing in Apple a pure gamble--the price fluctuates with absolutely no regard for the company's product line or sales. "Stay away" I warn everyone.
post #15 of 56
Don't you think Steve would have planned new products, announcements, etc. for the next year, not alone 6 months, even without the health issue? I kind of think the lack of new product announcements at MacWorld was to pave the way for plenty of mouth watering stuff to be released in his absence.
post #16 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan View Post

RBC is my bank, the largest in Canada and, in most respects, a no nonsense bank. No flimsy evaluations where Apple stock has a target price of $235, $240 or $250 within the next 12 months.

At long last, stock analysts who analyse.



What a hilarious analysis by RBC. It looks like they want to pick up some cheap stock before the earnings announcement next week. Was anybody in an Apple store over the holidays. HELLO!!! These guys obviously weren't! I love how these firms try to manipulate the price of stock for their own internal benefit. Like they are doing us all a favor. Just wait until we all see how many iPhones were sold in Q4. Cheers!
post #17 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by megatrick View Post

I smell an analyst who is trying to make a killing by selling short. The opposite of "pump and dump" is "hump and dump."

I've been trying to understand what shorts are. Well, I think I understand how they are done, but I don't understand why they're allowed or why they're needed.
post #18 of 56
I hate to say it, but Apple analysts and the stock are wacky on the upside and even more wackier on the downside.

In a market where we are supposedly separating the wheat from the chaff, a company with differentiated products, diverse revenue lines, a deep product pipeline, stellar management team, huge profits, high operating margins and massive cashflow gets downgraded and creamed.

This "analysis" is more about short term momentum than anything. Consumer. Check. High-end. Check. Leadership uncertainty. Check. Insert company name here.

Shoot first, and do real analysis later, something I blogged about in:

Punishing the Wizard: On Apple and Steve Jobs
http://thenetworkgarden.com/weblog/2...teve-jobs.html

Check it out if interested.

Cheers,

Mark
post #19 of 56
"The opposite of "pump and dump" is "hump and dump.""

Actually, it's "short and distort."
post #20 of 56
This analyst is just trying to make a name for himself. Several months ago, Fortune published an article "the genius behind Steve Jobs". Apple was obviously communicating to the world that Apple is not a one man show. There is depth in talent in everything from industrial design, marketing and operations. Add to that $28 billion in the bank.

Cash represents about $30/share. You have to take current share price minus cash and you get a forward p/e ratio of about 8 times earnings. This is a ridiculously CHEAP valuation for a growth stock.

It is a real possibility that Jobs will never return as CEO and the street expects this. Product pipeline is at least 18-24 months long. Apple shareholders don't need to worry about new products for a while.
In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Reply
In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Reply
post #21 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I will close my account at RBC today. Morons.

Good decision. Pass it along.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #22 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Knights View Post

"The opposite of "pump and dump" is "hump and dump.""

Actually, it's "short and distort."

An inverse Reality Distortion Field? That could create a black hole and destroy the Earth!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #23 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan View Post

RBC is my bank, the largest in Canada and, in most respects, a no nonsense bank. No flimsy evaluations where Apple stock has a target price of $235, $240 or $250 within the next 12 months.

At long last, stock analysts who analyse.



A $70 price target based on the justifications stated by the analyst makes no sense. In an efficient capital market, widely known information such as Jobs' health or the economy or the decline in consumer electronic spending is represented by the stock price in a matter of minutes. The stock will not decline further as a result of these factors, but only if new developments arise.

There is one important distinction between this and the higher ($200) estimates. The $70 target was based on previously-known information, whereas the higher targets are based upon guesses as to what the economy and consumer spending will look like 12 months from now.
post #24 of 56
"Including a 'Steve Jobs' premium"

So THAT'S why Macs cost so much.
post #25 of 56
Apple strength is based on its key proprietary technologies. The MacOS is extremely stable since it based on Unix. The iPhone and the new iPods are based on the same OS. Even iTunes is proprietary. Nobody else has this combo of technologies along with product design.

The main impediment is that iPhone is offered to a limited number of carriers. After they break loose of the likes of ATT, Apple can offer multimode iPhones with CDMA, GSM, EDGE and WCDMA radios include and sold in open channels.

Short term, I would love a nasty price drop... so I can buy shares. Taking out the $30B cash out, and including the deferred revenues of iPhone, the PE is already dirt cheap.
post #26 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by AjitMD View Post

Short term, I would love a nasty price drop... so I can buy shares. Taking out the $30B cash out, and including the deferred revenues of iPhone, the PE is already dirt cheap.

I don't think you are going to get a price drop bigger than we just had. What worse news are you expecting? This is the bottom.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #27 of 56
Dell is at 2x cash, Apple is at 3.5x cash. Dell is taking a hit on margins and sales; Apple is really just taking a small hit on sales (based on consumer spending). Apple is showing year-over-year growth in unit sales (although average selling price is likely trending down).

The question is ultimately if Apple is going to see market erosion in the iPhone and MacBook lines. The iPhone has a number of viable competitors gaining market share on the "touch screen smartphone" segent-- in the US, the BB Storm is especially damaging, because it is a very good fit for Verizon customers that don't want to switch. Likewise, the Macbook franchise is feeling pressure from Netbooks and extended consumer refresh timelines. Windows 7 is due out by late summer, and it might not completely suck.

So to that end, in the next 6-12 months, will Apple release products that will counter that cycle? Snow Leopard seems to be a defensive play rather than innovative. Will a new iPhone be released that has the "missing features" that should have been there all along? Will they offer something that competes with the Netbooks? Will they continue to innovate on the iPod Touch? Will their present management team be able to deliver on these and future challenges to Apple's ongoing growth? (These questions and many more to be answered on the next edition of Soap!)

I'm pretty much resolved that Apple will stay below $100 for the next 12 months (at least the 30 day EMA). However, nothing that I have seen so far suggests that there should be further price erosion. SJ was already priced in, as was the $1.44 2009Q1 earnings.
post #28 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I will close my account at RBC today. Morons.

Good for you ! RBC-Royal Bank, Bank of Montreal, TD-Toronto-Dominion, and CIBC-Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, all received billions of dollars from the Canadian Government 6 weeks ago to assist them in these "uncertain financial times". I would not take any advice from an organization that is incapable of navigating their own liquidity (ie: having enough management brains to know how much capital they need on hand to protect themselves from a bad financial economy ). Let's not forget that the Royal Bank's "proprietary Changewave survey" does not account for any future technologies, or innovations that a firm like Apple can offer and which - as has been seen with the iPod and the iPhone - entirely new profitable markets (software and music downloads, etc) can be created out of nothing. Stock analysts, for the most part, only looks at past indicators and statistical inputs.
_______________________________________________
AppleEater: an Apple a day keeps the PC away !
Reply
_______________________________________________
AppleEater: an Apple a day keeps the PC away !
Reply
post #29 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

I don't think you are going to get a price drop bigger than we just had. What worse news are you expecting? This is the bottom.

no doubt. short of a pending war with China and suspended trade relations (knock on wood) I can't imagine anything worse than Steve stepping aside.
post #30 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post

I'm pretty much resolved that Apple will stay below $100 for the next 12 months (at least the 30 day EMA). However, nothing that I have seen so far suggests that there should be further price erosion. SJ was already priced in, as was the $1.44 2009Q1 earnings.

you pose a very intelligent argument. and I hope you are dead wrong. Acer is killing with these netbooks, which is pretty surprising to me, but then, if joe consumer was made to cough up 200 bucks a year for the newest ipod, why not 3-500 a year for the newest netbook?
post #31 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by megatrick View Post

I smell an analyst who is trying to make a killing by selling short. The opposite of "pump and dump" is "hump and dump."

Very keen observation. When will the US and Canadian authorities look into if such analysts are actually to influence a stock price by "shorting it" in the public domain. Frankly, I am a little distressed that these analysts base their comments on weird calculations using everything but Price-to-Earnings (P/E) stats...and are allowed to get away with it. What a dead give away.
_______________________________________________
AppleEater: an Apple a day keeps the PC away !
Reply
_______________________________________________
AppleEater: an Apple a day keeps the PC away !
Reply
post #32 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by echosonic View Post

you pose a very intelligent argument. and I hope you are dead wrong. Acer is killing with these netbooks, which is pretty surprising to me, but then, if joe consumer was made to cough up 200 bucks a year for the newest ipod, why not 3-500 a year for the newest netbook?

As for the "netbook" market....we will look back at this era of the tech age and we will clearly see it for what it is: Steve Jobs has missed an important opportunity, just like Bill Gates missed the internet before him. Corner Office Syndrome: nobody tells Steve when its time to act like Steve. He will dive into netbooks when he is good and ready (2010).
_______________________________________________
AppleEater: an Apple a day keeps the PC away !
Reply
_______________________________________________
AppleEater: an Apple a day keeps the PC away !
Reply
post #33 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleEater View Post

As for the "netbook" market....we will look back at this era of the tech age and we will clearly see it for what it is: Steve Jobs has missed an important opportunity, just like Bill Gates missed the internet before him. Corner Office Syndrome: nobody tells Steve when its time to act like Steve. He will dive into netbooks when he is good and ready (2010).

only $10 lower...?? with the worst of the recession still in front. The likely non return of the iconic leader, dated desktop products, more expensive notebook products. Strange pro decisions (battery), and saturation of main market (ipod) and softening demand for iphones?

plus MS can't stay this bad for much longer...

I'd say this is an optimistic analyst assessment.
post #34 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I've been trying to understand what shorts are. Well, I think I understand how they are done, but I don't understand why they're allowed or why they're needed.

(I am cutting and pasting a reply of mine on a similar question that someone else had, on Jan 5, 2009):

'Shorts' are short-sellers. They bet on a price decline, and make money if that expectation is borne out. Essentially, they sell stock that they do not own, by borrowing it from someone who owns it; if the short-sellers' expectation proves correct and the price falls, they buy it at the lower market price and return it to the person that they originally borrowed the stock from, thereby making a profit. If the price goes up instead, they lose money since they have to buy it at a price higher than at which they sold. See, for instance, http://www.sec.gov/answers/shortsale.htm

You can make a similar bet with put options and protect yourself on the downside (but options cost you money up front).

Some people blame short-sellers for stock price manipulation since they believe they have the incentive to leak adverse news to the market to drive down share prices. Others vehemently disagree.

What is inarguable is: (i) Short selling is perfectly legal; (ii) It is a necessary component of information flows that helps to make the market efficient since it provides the counterpoint to unduly optimistic and rose-colored views that might otherwise prevail, driving the value of the stock away from its fundamentals in the other direction.
post #35 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleEater View Post

Frankly, I am a little distressed that these analysts base their comments on weird calculations using everything but Price-to-Earnings (P/E) stats...and are allowed to get away with it.

Well, the 'P/E' itself is a short-hand (and arguably lazy) metric that captures the effect of long-run expected growth in a company's cash flows and its 'cost of capital' (or the return that investors expect to get from risk-equivalent assets).

In other words, the 'P/E' is never a substitute for (what is commonly referred to as) a 'discounted cash flow' (DCF) analysis.
post #36 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan View Post

There are many reasons for the shares of Apple to be downgraded to a price target of $70. Here are a few reasons:

.....

Most of the items on your list are nothing new. Your issues with Apple's product mix, AppleTV, their margins, etc, etc have existed for months and years. So assuming this analyst did his job when he set his $125 target, all of those reasons should support that target. Even questions about Steve Job's health have been issues for nealy 6 months now. His taking a leave of absence now indicates that the health issues are more serious than we thought. So sure, that is a reason to downgrade. But cutting the target nearly in half?

Additionally, their "Changewave" survey is comparing projected purchases for the next 90 days to results for the same question in Sep and Nov of last year. How about comparing it to survey results from one year ago! You can't compare 4th quarter '08 to 1st quarter '09 because of seasonality. Or do they not have a holiday shopping season in Canada?
post #37 of 56
I think Steve's leave of absence is one of the best things to happen in years because it will allow him to receive the treatment he needs and will allow Apple to demonstrate that it can be successful without him there every day of the week.

Apple wouldn't be a successful company if their success hinged on one man so we already know they can do without him cracking the whip every day. In fact, they might even run better without the shadow of Steve looming over everyone.
post #38 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by echosonic View Post

...if joe consumer was made to cough up 200 bucks a year for the newest ipod, why not 3-500 a year for the newest netbook?

The classic argument would be that the iPod offered incremental value at a discretionary purchase price. Currently, Apple is banking on their Mac users to shell out $100 every other year for the newest OSX, and maybe even another $150 or so each year between iLife and iWork. I'd argue that these moves are really intended more to incentiveize people to refresh the hardware faster based on personal experience.

For most people, a computer is purely a functional device. A growing number view it as a fashion accessory, which would play well into your argument of more rapid refresh cycles

Another data point is RIMM on the stock prices; they trade at 30x cash (bad valuation metric for them), and 16.5x TTM Earnings. If you take cash out of the stock price and assume AAPL's earnings are flat for the year then you are giving RIMM a 70% premium.

While I do think RIMM is a little more insulated from the current downturn that AAPL, I don't think they deserve a 70% premium (maybe closer to a 30 or 40% )
post #39 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

You seem to know about as much as this analyst does, which is zilcho. No wonder that you think he 'analyzes'.

Mind explaining to us how exactly the "Steve Jobs premium" was 5X earnings, or do you know the orifice that he pulled it out of?

not sure why you quoted and then misspelled.

no one will know what will happen to the stock: there could be an earthquake and apple swallowed whole: no one knows.
TouchMyApps - All things iPhone for those who like to touch
Reply
TouchMyApps - All things iPhone for those who like to touch
Reply
post #40 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by ouragan View Post

There are many reasons for the shares of Apple to be downgraded to a price target of $70. Here are a few reasons:


1- There are no reasons, absolutely no reasons, for Apple to carry a higher valuation or higher multiple for its shares than competing companies listed on the NASDQ Stock Exchange;

2- Appple's growth is slowing down as evidenced by unofficial sales numbers for Macs and iPhones over the last 2 months;

.....and so on and so on...

If you go in such details about Apple and think its doing bad, then what about companies that in the s**t hole?

Big secret for you, these kind of things have been always around for every company, including Apple. Speculations, lying, lawsuits. That's what big corporations do. Apple is just very publicly popular and is a trend so the facts are blown out of proportions.

I would worry about overall US economy, not just Apple.
Apple had me at scrolling
Reply
Apple had me at scrolling
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › RBC downgrades Apple to 'Underperform', slashes target to $70