You still haven't shown me an analyst who has changed their target price for AAPL solely on the basis of the new accounting rules. You are simply making that assumption because you don't know why else they'd have done so. Soaring iPhone sales, perhaps? The ending recession, perhaps? Now those would be a good financial reasons to forecast higher earnings and consequently a higher stock price. Quoting Munster as saying the new reporting rules will a positive for shares is not the same thing. In fact, any impact is likely to be transitory because these numbers are already known. As pointed out above, over 70% of AAPL shares are held by institutions. These fund managers are not stupid.
I think that you are parsing words. Both Munster and Reiner DIRECTLY call out the change in citing their upgrades. If that doesn't qualify because it doesn't fit your SOLELY criteria, I can respect that, but respectfully disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
You still haven't shown me an analyst who has changed their target price for AAPL solely on the basis of the new accounting rules. You are simply making that assumption because you don't know why else they'd have done so. Soaring iPhone sales, perhaps? The ending recession, perhaps? Now those would be a good financial reasons to forecast higher earnings and consequently a higher stock price. Quoting Munster as saying the new reporting rules will a positive for shares is not the same thing. In fact, any impact is likely to be transitory because these numbers are already known. As pointed out above, over 70% of AAPL shares are held by institutions. These fund managers are not stupid.
Okay, I've had two questions about the whole GAAP thing for a while now, and you guys seem like you should be able to answer them. I warn you now, they're probably fairly simplistic and borderline stupid, but hey, that's me in a nutshell:
1. By changing the reporting of iPhone revenues so that the whole sale goes into the month it was made, won't that just decrease the reported earnings for each of the succeeding 24 months so that it's all a wash and shouldn't effect Apple's price at all? Part B of this question is, since, in addition to deferring a large portion of current months' iPhone sales, we've also been seeing part of Apple's sales for the preceding 24 months in every month's earnings, aren't these earnings statements actually a poor reflection of the current state of Apple's business?
2. Since they issue free OS updates, security fixes and even firmware updates, has Apple been parsing out the revenue from OS sales over some arbitrary "life of the product" period like they do with iPhones? If not, why not?
I think that you are parsing words. Both Munster and Reiner DIRECTLY call out the change in citing their upgrades. If that doesn't qualify because it doesn't fit your SOLELY criteria, I can respect that, but respectfully disagree.
No, I'm using words. It has nothing to do with "my criteria." Your analysis is superficial. You need to look a little deeper into the subject, especially if you are going to purport to give investment advice. I've been an AAPL stockholder for 12 years, and I never do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyV13
Okay, I've had two questions about the whole GAAP thing for a while now, and you guys seem like you should be able to answer them. I warn you now, they're probably fairly simplistic and borderline stupid, but hey, that's me in a nutshell:
1. By changing the reporting of iPhone revenues so that the whole sale goes into the month it was made, won't that just decrease the reported earnings for each of the succeeding 24 months so that it's all a wash and shouldn't effect Apple's price at all? Part B of this question is, since, in addition to deferring a large portion of current months' iPhone sales, we've also been seeing part of Apple's sales for the preceding 24 months in every month's earnings, aren't these earnings statements actually a poor reflection of the current state of Apple's business?
2. Since they issue free OS updates, security fixes and even firmware updates, has Apple been parsing out the revenue from OS sales over some arbitrary "life of the product" period like they do with iPhones? If not, why not?
Let me have it.
On (1) I doubt it. I believe it will apply only to revenue reported from now (or whenever they start) on. If anything, they will have to restate earnings higher going backwards since some revenue earned nearly two years ago has not yet officially appeared on the books. On (2) I don't think so. Fractional OS updates and the lot have never been included in Apple's interpretation of this accounting rule.
Okay, I've had two questions about the whole GAAP thing for a while now, and you guys seem like you should be able to answer them. I warn you now, they're probably fairly simplistic and borderline stupid, but hey, that's me in a nutshell:
1. By changing the reporting of iPhone revenues so that the whole sale goes into the month it was made, won't that just decrease the reported earnings for each of the succeeding 24 months so that it's all a wash and shouldn't effect Apple's price at all? Part B of this question is, since, in addition to deferring a large portion of current months' iPhone sales, we've also been seeing part of Apple's sales for the preceding 24 months in every month's earnings, aren't these earnings statements actually a poor reflection of the current state of Apple's business?
2. Since they issue free OS updates, security fixes and even firmware updates, has Apple been parsing out the revenue from OS sales over some arbitrary "life of the product" period like they do with iPhones? If not, why not?
Let me have it.
I agree with Dr. Millmoss on (1).
On (2), I am less sure, to be honest. But it seems like if Apple were doing so and if that number was significant, it would have been brought up in the public media at some point. It would generally be true only in the case of subscription-based software, and Apple does not seem to have much of that?
Well I'd like to remind you all again that I have been a contributing factor this quarter with my iPhone purchase along with my excellent word of mouth as I have also switched 2 other friends over when they saw how my iPhone completes me.
This quarter I hopefully will buy either a new iMac or a new MBP 13", whichever gets matte first.
Comments
Paragraph 3: Apple Accounting Change: Why it Matters (http://bit.ly/rCWsp)
Get real. Enough with your trying to drive hits to your blog site. I don't click on or read self-promoting links.
Indeed, from just a casual glance of "find more posts by...", I see that you have a tendency to do that a lot.
If you have something to say, please try and say it in a self-contained way, here. Happy to respond to those.
You still haven't shown me an analyst who has changed their target price for AAPL solely on the basis of the new accounting rules. You are simply making that assumption because you don't know why else they'd have done so. Soaring iPhone sales, perhaps? The ending recession, perhaps? Now those would be a good financial reasons to forecast higher earnings and consequently a higher stock price. Quoting Munster as saying the new reporting rules will a positive for shares is not the same thing. In fact, any impact is likely to be transitory because these numbers are already known. As pointed out above, over 70% of AAPL shares are held by institutions. These fund managers are not stupid.
1. By changing the reporting of iPhone revenues so that the whole sale goes into the month it was made, won't that just decrease the reported earnings for each of the succeeding 24 months so that it's all a wash and shouldn't effect Apple's price at all? Part B of this question is, since, in addition to deferring a large portion of current months' iPhone sales, we've also been seeing part of Apple's sales for the preceding 24 months in every month's earnings, aren't these earnings statements actually a poor reflection of the current state of Apple's business?
2. Since they issue free OS updates, security fixes and even firmware updates, has Apple been parsing out the revenue from OS sales over some arbitrary "life of the product" period like they do with iPhones? If not, why not?
Let me have it.
I think that you are parsing words. Both Munster and Reiner DIRECTLY call out the change in citing their upgrades. If that doesn't qualify because it doesn't fit your SOLELY criteria, I can respect that, but respectfully disagree.
No, I'm using words. It has nothing to do with "my criteria." Your analysis is superficial. You need to look a little deeper into the subject, especially if you are going to purport to give investment advice. I've been an AAPL stockholder for 12 years, and I never do that.
Okay, I've had two questions about the whole GAAP thing for a while now, and you guys seem like you should be able to answer them. I warn you now, they're probably fairly simplistic and borderline stupid, but hey, that's me in a nutshell:
1. By changing the reporting of iPhone revenues so that the whole sale goes into the month it was made, won't that just decrease the reported earnings for each of the succeeding 24 months so that it's all a wash and shouldn't effect Apple's price at all? Part B of this question is, since, in addition to deferring a large portion of current months' iPhone sales, we've also been seeing part of Apple's sales for the preceding 24 months in every month's earnings, aren't these earnings statements actually a poor reflection of the current state of Apple's business?
2. Since they issue free OS updates, security fixes and even firmware updates, has Apple been parsing out the revenue from OS sales over some arbitrary "life of the product" period like they do with iPhones? If not, why not?
Let me have it.
On (1) I doubt it. I believe it will apply only to revenue reported from now (or whenever they start) on. If anything, they will have to restate earnings higher going backwards since some revenue earned nearly two years ago has not yet officially appeared on the books. On (2) I don't think so. Fractional OS updates and the lot have never been included in Apple's interpretation of this accounting rule.
Okay, I've had two questions about the whole GAAP thing for a while now, and you guys seem like you should be able to answer them. I warn you now, they're probably fairly simplistic and borderline stupid, but hey, that's me in a nutshell:
1. By changing the reporting of iPhone revenues so that the whole sale goes into the month it was made, won't that just decrease the reported earnings for each of the succeeding 24 months so that it's all a wash and shouldn't effect Apple's price at all? Part B of this question is, since, in addition to deferring a large portion of current months' iPhone sales, we've also been seeing part of Apple's sales for the preceding 24 months in every month's earnings, aren't these earnings statements actually a poor reflection of the current state of Apple's business?
2. Since they issue free OS updates, security fixes and even firmware updates, has Apple been parsing out the revenue from OS sales over some arbitrary "life of the product" period like they do with iPhones? If not, why not?
Let me have it.
I agree with Dr. Millmoss on (1).
On (2), I am less sure, to be honest. But it seems like if Apple were doing so and if that number was significant, it would have been brought up in the public media at some point. It would generally be true only in the case of subscription-based software, and Apple does not seem to have much of that?
Well I'd like to remind you all again that I have been a contributing factor this quarter with my iPhone purchase along with my excellent word of mouth as I have also switched 2 other friends over when they saw how my iPhone completes me.
This quarter I hopefully will buy either a new iMac or a new MBP 13", whichever gets matte first.
uggg
muggg
the glossy out does it all
go to a apple store with a test dvd
and compare
matee loses