Apple price targets reduced as company's growth slows to 'normal' levels

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 100
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,383member
    I don't,know why they had flat earnings. I haven't what the reasoning is behind it. But I just see this as a BUY opportunity. Apple has to fix the supply issues which I'm sure they will and since it doesn't seem like a demand issue, then I'm not worried. Plus, the second they sign China Mobile is the day this stock should explode. I actually like the news that they have lots of government and corporate accounts buying product in large quantity, that's a good sign.
  • Reply 22 of 100

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by stelligent View Post


     




    Rose-colored or not, some pundits have in fact been predicting such disruptive products (e.g. Munster). Of course, whether it will emerge in 2013 remains to be seen. Remember this - iPod came out in 2001l; iPhone in 2007 and iPad in 2010. There is no pattern to when new product classes emerge. It may take another 6 years.





    Well, by mentioning Munster, you just popped my balloon.  image

  • Reply 23 of 100
    poochpooch Posts: 768member
    these people aren't analysts. they're crappy soothsayers, and reactionaries.
  • Reply 24 of 100
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,294member
    stelligent wrote: »

    Is it true that these analysts drove the price down? Most (all?) have been steadfast in publishing price targets of $550 to $750, if not higher.

    IMHO it's a mixture of the Media, a strange hatred for Apple by so many and Wall Street manipulation. The way on the one hand these 'experts' suggest Apple needs volume with more lower end products then on the other freak out when a slightly reduced (yet still way ahead of anything else in this universe) profit margin appears due to the success (rather than failure) of the iPad Mini. It is totally absurd.
  • Reply 25 of 100
    Remember that the price swings in Apple stock price have zero to do with Apple's true goal of creating great, high-quality products that its customers like.

    This is all about people who try to make money off of guessing what the Apple price will be at a certain point in time. I would hate to call them "investors" - they don't really invest in a company - that is too long-term. They are looking to make money on the short-term movement of the stock price. They are gambling more than investing.

    If you look at Apple's financial fundamentals and market positions the company is in fantastic shape. What other company can match their revenues and margins on that scale?

    The "not innovating" line is nonsense. You don't create revolutionary products like the iPhone or iPad every year. What other company is innovating and delivering it in REAL PRODUCTS like Apple.

    Technology media is constantly hyping the next greatest thing because they need to sell ads, but how much of it is really that groundbreaking or game changing?
  • Reply 26 of 100


    The thing is, the earning weren't flat.  If you did the math, 13 week vs 13 week or 14 week vs 14 week, the earning were up..  It's typical media BS that is saying earnings were flat.  And that, my friends, is a lie.  A group of people are manipulating the shares of Apple in order to make money.  That's all that is going on here..  Period.

  • Reply 27 of 100

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by drblank View Post



    I don't,know why they had flat earnings. I haven't what the reasoning is behind it. But I just see this as a BUY opportunity. Apple has to fix the supply issues which I'm sure they will and since it doesn't seem like a demand issue, then I'm not worried. Plus, the second they sign China Mobile is the day this stock should explode. I actually like the news that they have lots of government and corporate accounts buying product in large quantity, that's a good sign.


    Are all of you guys insane? You people talk like if earnings were bad...


     


    13.1 billion!!! no one is close... and yet the stock goes down. (remember, profit was up 8%. 13 weeks vs 14)

  • Reply 28 of 100
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,294member
    Are all of you guys insane? You people talk like if earnings were bad...

    13.1 billion!!! no one is close... and yet the stock goes down. (remember, profit was up 8%. 13 weeks vs 14)

    Indeed!
  • Reply 29 of 100

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post


    Are all of you guys insane? You people talk like if earnings were bad...


     


    13.1 billion!!! no one is close... and yet the stock goes down. (remember, profit was up 8%. 13 weeks vs 14)



     


    These two things are unrelated. The market cap should reflect the NPV of all expected future payouts. That and nothing more.


     


    If expected future payouts decrease, so should the stock price.

     


    It is quite insane to believe that increased earnings should automatically result in a higher stock price. That makes no sense whatsoever.

  • Reply 30 of 100
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post


    Are all of you guys insane? You people talk like if earnings were bad...


     


    13.1 billion!!! no one is close... and yet the stock goes down. (remember, profit was up 8%. 13 weeks vs 14)



     


    The stock market is a confidence game. If someone goes from posting amazing growth (50%+ YoY) every quarter to something approaching no growth, confidence will be lost.


     


    As a consumer it means very little - Apple is a very healthy company that still makes amazing products and continues to innovate. It just sucks to be an investor right now.

  • Reply 31 of 100

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by igxqrrl View Post


     


    These two things are unrelated. The market cap should reflect the NPV of all expected future payouts. That and nothing more.


     


    If expected future payouts decrease, so should the stock price.

     


    It is quite insane to believe that increased earnings should automatically result in a higher stock price. That makes no sense whatsoever.





    You know not what you have done...  image

  • Reply 32 of 100
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    igxqrrl wrote: »
    These two things are unrelated. The market cap should reflect the NPV of all expected future payouts. That and nothing more.

    If expected future payouts decrease, so should the stock price.

    That's mostly true. However, when you compare Apple's stock price to the NPV of expected future results (7 times forward, cash adjusted earnings) to the market average (18-20 times forward, cash adjusted earnings), there's a major disconnect.

    One could argue that Apple's share price should have dropped after the latest earnings report (I don't think so since they actually exceeded last year and most of the analysts who thought their earnings would actually drop by about 2%, but it would be a legitimate argument). I can't, however, see any plausible way to argue that the current share price (and, therefore, the share price yesterday) is anyway reasonable.

    stelligent wrote: »

    Is it true that these analysts drove the price down? Most (all?) have been steadfast in publishing price targets of $550 to $750, if not higher.

    SOME have been fairly bullish on Apple. But others (and, more importantly, the media) have been making a big deal out of trivial issues and even fabricating stories when they had nothing to say. So, yes, it's not all analysts and the media shares a large part of the blame, too.
  • Reply 33 of 100

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post



    Funny how almost every one has Apple listed as 'overweight' or 'outperform'.



    Obviously, if you drive the price down far enough, it's a 'buy'.



    ETA: I just bought 37 more shares at 457.


    agreed.  I added 30 more shares as well at 460.


     


    at 3X cash, and the only thing limiting Apple profit is production lines and stores in China, and the major CapEx spend, I can't see the stock dropping another 10X.


     


    I can't see Mutual Funds not picking up AAPL purely as an Income hedge... paying 2.3% yield, No LT debt, and still high margins.  

  • Reply 34 of 100
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,154member
    I'm sorry, does a single rational person on the planet expect an exponential curve to keep having exponential growth infinitely, especially in the realm of the sales of consumer products and the insanely complex logistics required to enable sales? Unreal. And if $55 Billion, 48million phones, and 22 million iPads in a quarter is considered 'normal', then **** me. If Apple can continue with these same stratospheric numbers and revenues, with 0% growth, they'll still remain the most successful company on the planet by far.
  • Reply 35 of 100

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    That's mostly true. However, when you compare Apple's stock price to the NPV of expected future results (7 times forward, cash adjusted earnings) to the market average (18-20 times forward, cash adjusted earnings), there's a major disconnect.


     


    Note that I explicitly said "future payouts", not "future results". Those are two different things.


     


    A company that has as a policy never returning a single penny to investors has no value to those investors, even if it's raking in profits.

  • Reply 36 of 100
    mariomario Posts: 346member


    So they need to focus on a few products and they need more products? Which one is it?

     

  • Reply 37 of 100

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mario View Post


    So they need to focus on a few products and they need more products? Which one is it?

     





    Both

  • Reply 38 of 100
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    igxqrrl wrote: »
    Note that I explicitly said "future payouts", not "future results". Those are two different things.

    A company that has as a policy never returning a single penny to investors has no value to those investors, even if it's raking in profits.

    That's absolutely false.

    Many investors are happy to buy stock in the hopes that they will sell it for more in the future. In fact, since historically capital gains were taxed at a lower rate than dividends, many people preferred that.

    There are plenty of companies which do not pay dividends who have done well. In fact, one could look at Apple. Until last summer, they never paid a dividend - and had one of the largest stock run-ups in history. Today, they're a dividend-paying stock and their shares are down about 40% from their peak.
  • Reply 39 of 100
    focherfocher Posts: 640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by herbapou View Post


     


     


    youre obviously have no clue at all on how stocks are price....



    At this point, no one could have a clue at all on how AAPL is priced.

  • Reply 40 of 100

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    That's absolutely false.



    Many investors are happy to buy stock in the hopes that they will sell it for more in the future. In fact, since historically capital gains were taxed at a lower rate than dividends, many people preferred that.



    There are plenty of companies which do not pay dividends who have done well. In fact, one could look at Apple. Until last summer, they never paid a dividend - and had one of the largest stock run-ups in history. Today, they're a dividend-paying stock and their shares are down about 40% from their peak.


    It's absolutely true when you grow past a certain market cap.  


     


    No dividend no investors.   A healthy dividend is how Microsoft maintains their market cap.  


     


    A stock that grows forever is a ponzi scheme.  

Sign In or Register to comment.