Did I say market cap? I said the value of Apple. Do you know how to calculate the value of any company, including Apple? Its called enterprise value, which is market cap less net debt. Go look that up and tell me what you find. I'll repeat my statement as I know I am 100% correct that the value of Apple has decreased under Tim Cook. It is fact.
Maybe you simply don't understand company valuation. If someone wanted to buy Apple would they pay the market cap? Nope, they'd pay the enterprise value. Company A has mkt cap of $100 and debt of $0; Company B has market cap of $50 and debt of $60. No cash at either. Which company is worth more? In the real world its B, in your fantasy land its A. Go read a couple finance books before you respond and make yourself look even sillier.
You are confusing issues here. And being arrogant about it.
1) The market cap -- i.e., the value of a company's stock including its cash -- is a hugely relevant number. It is what the company is worth to its equity holders, and when people talk of 'value of a company' this is the number that they often mean. So it's quite reasonable that someone misunderstood that when you did not clarify or define it in your original post.
2) As an equity holder, assuming that I think that the company's cash is worth cash (i.e., the management won't waste it), the cash puts a floor on the market value of my equity. So it's a massively important asset to consider, especially in the case of a company such as Apple.
3) Your definition of 'enterprise value' (EV) is incorrect (see my highlighting above). However, your EV calculation happens to be correct in Apple's case. Let me explain. EV is NOT "market cap less net debt" as you defined it. It is market cap plus debt (plus the value of any other claims if any, e.g., preferreds) minus cash. In other words, EV market cap plus net debt. (You're the one that should look it up!).
Of course, in Apple's case, EV equals market cap minus cash, i.e., your numbers turn out correct, but that's only because Apple has no debt (or any other claimants). Therefore you are correct that EV under Tim Cook -- the non-cash value of Apple -- has fallen. However, that explicitly assumes that Cook deserves no credit for the cash build-up. That is a bit unfair, since, after all the cash on the balance sheet does belong to Apple's owners. He could, for instance, have thrown it away on wasteful acquisitions, but has/did not.
4) The correct conceptual definition of EV is that it is a measure of the discounted value of total cash flows from the operating assets of a business (i.e., free cash flow to the firm, reflecting its operating cash flow net of its investing cash flow), where the discount rate is risk-adjusted, and reflects a weighted blend of the expected returns of every type of capital supplier to the business (called the 'weighted average cost of capital' or WACC).
YOU missed his point. He's primarily saying that Tim Cook is incompetent.
And he's confused in his argument, saying that Apple is becoming reactive, not proactive, in REACTING to the new competitive challenges.
Applelunatic is doing some heroic work here. Don't confuse him with misinterpretation.
I didn't say Tim Cook was incompetent, but I will say he's lost more value for any company in history during a bull market.
Why, with all the cash they have, all the resources they have, the money to buy anything they want are there discussions about iCloud's limitations and how Dropbox is better? Why did a company with all these resources release a maps app that was universally criticized just to remove the Google app only to bring it back? Why is Samsung expected to sell 100 million S4s in the first year, while the IP5 isn't on an implied pace to meet that level? Doesn't matter as much in US, but why are Asian consumers who want one, not able to buy an Apple product with a larger screen? All on Tim.
But the reason, aka low iPhone sales, is not confirmed. And yet all the analysts are pushing that claim.
well Apple is 60-70% of their business. one would have to think the other lines of business dropped to almost nothing to think Apple's share hasn't dropped.
"Could care less" has been used for over 3 decades in common use. Get over it. The English language is not based on rules set by grammarians and grammar nazis, but by how it's used by the average writers and speakers of the language.
Actually, English totally is. American isn't, but English is specifically based on rules set by a governing body. Spelling and Pronunciation.
As far as Apple's manufacturer showing a decline in revenues, they also make Amazon products as well as others. Perhaps the miss is from that source...
I believe they also make the Surface and we know how that's (not) selling
I would like a larger display iPhone. I know many people that would. Just because you don't doesn't mean others wouldn't buy them.
How can you tell others off for their beliefs and then turn around and claim yours are the majority?
I am amazed as the lack of basic finance knowledge. If you want to buy a widget business that costs $1 million and you put in your own money for half and borrow the other half, you have a capitalization that is 50% equity and 50% debt. Lets say you immediately take the company public, so the market cap is 500k and you have 500k of debt, Did the value of the business you bought for 1 million just drop to 500k because that is the market cap? Of course not, the value of the business is still $1 million., All companies choose to capitalize themselves differently. The only way to normalize things is if you look at enterprise value, which is mkt cap less net debt. That tells you what a business is worth by looking at capitalization on an apples-to-apples basis.
So a company for which you have to pay $110 million—the majority of which goes to pay off incurred debts—is a better investment than one for which you have to pay $100 million—none of which is debt?
Originally Posted by charlituna
Looks like someone got this mixed up with androidinsider.com
You mean "What the effing crap are you even talking about; stop spewing nonsense.com"
Hard site to get to, given that it has a semicolon in the URL.
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Actually, English totally is. American isn't, but English is specifically based on rules set by a governing body. Spelling and Pronunciation.
Of course American English is governed by the same scope of rules. Why would you say otherwise?
You are confusing issues here. And being arrogant about it.
1) The market cap -- i.e., the value of a company's stock including its cash -- is a hugely relevant number. It is what the company is worth to its equity holders, and when people talk of 'value of a company' this is the number that they often mean. So it's quite reasonable that someone misunderstood that when you did not clarify or define it in your original post.
2) As an equity holder, assuming that I think that the company's cash is worth cash (i.e., the management won't waste it), the cash puts a floor on the market value of my equity. So it's a massively important asset to consider, especially in the case of a company such as Apple.
3) Your definition of 'enterprise value' (EV) is incorrect (see my highlighting above). However, your EV calculation happens to be correct in Apple's case. Let me explain. EV is NOT "market cap less net debt" as you defined it. It is market cap plus debt (plus the value of any other claims if any, e.g., preferreds) minus cash. In other words, EV market cap plus net debt. (You're the one that should look it up!).
Of course, in Apple's case, EV equals market cap minus cash, i.e., your numbers turn out correct, but that's only because Apple has no debt (or any other claimants). Therefore you are correct that EV under Tim Cook -- the non-cash value of Apple -- has fallen. However, that explicitly assumes that Cook deserves no credit for the cash build-up. That is a bit unfair, since, after all the cash on the balance sheet does belong to Apple's owners. He could, for instance, have thrown it away on wasteful acquisitions, but has/did not.
4) The correct conceptual definition of EV is that it is a measure of the discounted value of total cash flows from the operating assets of a business (i.e., free cash flow to the firm, reflecting its operating cash flow net of its investing cash flow), where the discount rate is risk-adjusted, and reflects a weighted blend of the expected returns of every type of capital supplier to the business (called the 'weighted average cost of capital' or WACC).
You're right on many fronts. Typo really, Apple has no debt, so I just think mkt cap less cash, but it is plus net debt. You are also correct to confirm that the non-cash value of Apple (which means the underlying business) has fallen under Tim Cook. Said differently, the business that was handed to him from Steve Jobs has dropped in value. That was my point.
Tim could have also created more value with that cash. If the best thing for the company is to earn 1% on the cash, that isn't good. Is it difficult that any acquisition, etc. will have a tough time moving the needle in the short term, but he needs to think 5-10 years out and deploy the cash today for those opportunities. Sitting on it isn't an option.
You 4th point is theoretical, but to put it in real world terms, the market is saying Apple's future cash flows have been reduced via competition and strategic decisions by far more than the $250 billion lost via the discounting of those cash flows.
One can go on and on about all the metrics that disprove him and the other trolls.
May I humbly request that we not automatically refer to everyone with whom we disagree as a "troll?" Just because someone has a contrary opinion or alternative view does not mean they are a troll.
Apple reported $13.06 billion in net income (profits) on $46 billion in revenue for the Dec '11 quarter. They reported $13.08 billion in revenue on $54.5 billion in revenue for the Dec. '12 quarter. An extra $8.5 billion in revenue resulted in an additional $20 million of profit. Yippee!
This is true. Apple's margins did fall quite a bit, and there's no way around that.
However, it is not clear if that was because of the extra costs incurred from all the new products and significant product upgrades that Apple introduced last year. In other words, it is not clear if that is temporary or permanent. I'd wait a couple of quarters before making that judgment. If similar margins are reported for the latest quarter too, I'd say that there is likely a margin problem -- let's wait until April 23.
Btw, Apple's average selling price for iPhones last quarter was the same as a year before ($641 v. $646); the ASP for Macs was actually $90 higher ($1360 v. $1269). However, the ASP for iPads was ~$100 lower, understandable because of the iPad Mini. I am guessing that's where the margins fell (given that it is a brand new product and given the extra costs involved in initial stages).
He has no Mac Pro on his roadmap, so obviously this is all bunk.
Not yet. Despite Tim's vague hints, there still isn't anything to suggest we're actually getting one. If and when we do, THEN Kuo's roadmap will be bunk. At this point we don't know that he's wrong.
It's rather an amazing coincidence that all these sites are calculating "enterprise value" wrong, no?
Not necessarily. Last week many mainstream media sources reported the Apple iRing TV as if it were an announcement. Once something is on the wires, it's gospel. It is not at all inconceivable that several sources could misreport the value of a company. Be ESPECIALLY suspicious if they're all reporting the same number, because it means they're just re-reporting what someone else re-reported from someone else's mistake.
I'm not saying that's what's happening here, but I *AM* saying that it's not nearly as unlikely as people would like to believe. Sadly, headlines and a solid block of infotainment trump skepticism and careful journalism.
How can you tell others off for their beliefs and then turn around and claim yours are the majority?
So a company for which you have to pay $110 million—the majority of which goes to pay off incurred debts—is a better investment than one for which you have to pay $100 million—none of which is debt?
You mean "What the effing crap are you even talking about; stop spewing nonsense.com"
Hard site to get to, given that it has a semicolon in the URL.
Of course American English is governed by the same scope of rules. Why would you say otherwise?
There is a market to make money buy producing larger phones. Apple is a public company whose objective should be to make the most profits it can for its investors. Your comment below implies nobody wants a larger display. I simply replied with my view that contrary to your belief, there are some who would like to see Apple make a larger display phone.
>>Maybe if you stopped pretending that people want a larger display, you'd know the answer to that.>>
>>So a company for which you have to pay $110 million—the majority of which goes to pay off incurred debts—is a better investment than one for which you have to pay $100 million—none of which is debt?>>
The theoretical $110 million company would only be worth that if the cash flows supported it, while theoretically the cash flows for the other company only support $100 million valuation. If you pay the debt off, you get the cash flow as the equity holder, so of course a company that produces more cash is worth more than one that generates less cash. This isn't meant to be insulting, but this is basic stuff, of course if you are willing to pay more for the entire company, debt or equity is meaningless, the value is the value. Why should differences in capitalization effect ultimate value? As someone else just stated the value of a company is its future cash flows discounted at the company's WACC. Debt in the cap structure reduces the WACC and thus increases the value to the equity. That is franky, just the way it is. Now is there a limit to how much debt a company should have? Of course. But debt in a capital structure typically creates more equity value, not less.
I didn't say Tim Cook was incompetent, but I will say he's lost more value for any company in history during a bull market.
Not 100% sure, but the inflation-adjusted loss for the Dutch East India Company between its peak and its bankruptcy may be the largest.... (at its peak, it was worth many trillions!).
Also, relative to its peak value of $625B, Microsoft may take that claim in modern times, having lost almost $400B.
Wow. Buying back your stock is a financial "trick." Virtually every company in the world that is capable does it. The only possible reason not to buy it with the amount of cash they have is they think it isn't a good value and is going lower or they have better uses for the cash, such as organic or external growth opportunities including acquisitions. As Warren Buffet said recently, he told Steve Jobs that if you can buy a dollar for 80 cts, its a good thing and he should do it. Honestly, if you think they outperform expectations in their products this year and the stock launches back up, why in the heck would you not want to buy it before that happens, which would mean shareholders get a larger piece of the earnings from those new products.
The free pass given to Tim Cook on this site is baffling. We only need to look at another once well respected Apple executive (Ron Johnson) to see that nobody is infallible, including Tim. All these stories of delays, execution problems, etc are problematic and show signs of a company that is becoming more reactive than proactive; one that rested on its laurels and is now scrambling to address the competitive landscape. Who develops products and then finds out only a few months before expected launch that they can't manufacture those products. Apple is still the product innovation leader, but it is very difficult to argue that Samsung hasn't taken a huge lead in manufacturing innovation.....multiple products, multiple sizes, multiple offerings which recently have been released earlier than expected or even released without the market even knowing about it coming. Apple on the other hand has been delaying releases, releasing products than can't meet demand or releasing half-baked apps such as maps.
True test of a leader is how they react to challenges. Its easy to lead from the front of the pack. Tim has all the cash in the world, he has all the resources one could possibly ask for and yet the expectations are that Apple will yet again miss consensus earnings this quarter and next and if this story is true about further delays, they will miss Sept. consensus earnings also. Three straight earnings misses after the stock starts plummeting isn't going to help stem the bleeding, especially when the 'leader' of the company has the personality of a stone. Nobody believes in Tim and he will come under significant pressure if this article turns out to be true. Tim was the one on the last earnings call who stated that analysts had it all wrong and no single supply chain data point could be read to mean production was slowing....well we've seen Foxconn numbers and we've seen sales estimates get massively cut. It is baffling that the analysts appear to have potentially been more in touch with what sales were doing than the CEO. We will find out if that is the case in a few weeks. If Tim guides the next quarter well below consensus and discusses weak sales after making a point last call to say the analysts didn't know what they were talking about, he is going to look like a real moron.
Stock is probably dead money at best for the next year with a buyback. Without one, it will drop > 50% from peak value in one of the biggest bull markets in awhile. A lot of people here have their heads in the sand if they think this isn't an Apple specific issue. Yes, earnings we huge last quarter, but the multiple has seen massive compression as the expectation is earnings will go negative this year and Tim 'No Communication' Cook has given no signs that isn't the case or that he even realizes the competitive threats they face. Samsung record earnings, Google record earnings, both near all-time highs while Apple languishes. This is on Apple, not analysts, not Wall Street. Put up or shut up. If Tim can't grow earnings while his competition can, he needs to go.
In that entire fucking wall of text, nary a single factual statement. Pathetic. What's also pathetic is that you've decided to define and judge Cook's performance basely solely on stock price, which is hardly an indicator of things, instead of all the other metrics directly correlating to Apple's success (ie. sales, revenues, profit, customer satisfaction, etc) which have all been the most stellar in Apple's history under Cook. But wait, I guess that would go against your forced thesis. Instead of using this hard, conclusive data, you decide to judge Apple's worth and success solely by the 'expectations' of analysts who have historically shown not to know their heads from their asses, time and time again. Not only that, you demand that Apple make their product decisions solely for the goal of temporarily satisfying this fickle group. You're honestly everything that's wrong with this industry, and all I can hope is that people with your mentality are nowhere near Apple's decision making process. Your thinking, and your philosophy of whats important would definitely cause a company like Apple, who knows how to filter the noise from the substance, to burn to the ground. Because all you have the ability to focus on is that noise.
Not 100% sure, but the inflation-adjusted loss for the Dutch East India Company between its peak and its bankruptcy may be the largest.... (at its peak, it was worth many trillions!).
Also, relative to its peak value of $625B, Microsoft may take that claim in modern times, having lost almost $400B.
I'm being cute by saying 'in a bull market.' MSFT, Worldcom, others may have lost more but that was while the markets were imploding around them.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdnc123
Did I say market cap? I said the value of Apple. Do you know how to calculate the value of any company, including Apple? Its called enterprise value, which is market cap less net debt. Go look that up and tell me what you find. I'll repeat my statement as I know I am 100% correct that the value of Apple has decreased under Tim Cook. It is fact.
Maybe you simply don't understand company valuation. If someone wanted to buy Apple would they pay the market cap? Nope, they'd pay the enterprise value. Company A has mkt cap of $100 and debt of $0; Company B has market cap of $50 and debt of $60. No cash at either. Which company is worth more? In the real world its B, in your fantasy land its A. Go read a couple finance books before you respond and make yourself look even sillier.
You are confusing issues here. And being arrogant about it.
1) The market cap -- i.e., the value of a company's stock including its cash -- is a hugely relevant number. It is what the company is worth to its equity holders, and when people talk of 'value of a company' this is the number that they often mean. So it's quite reasonable that someone misunderstood that when you did not clarify or define it in your original post.
2) As an equity holder, assuming that I think that the company's cash is worth cash (i.e., the management won't waste it), the cash puts a floor on the market value of my equity. So it's a massively important asset to consider, especially in the case of a company such as Apple.
3) Your definition of 'enterprise value' (EV) is incorrect (see my highlighting above). However, your EV calculation happens to be correct in Apple's case. Let me explain. EV is NOT "market cap less net debt" as you defined it. It is market cap plus debt (plus the value of any other claims if any, e.g., preferreds) minus cash. In other words, EV market cap plus net debt. (You're the one that should look it up!).
Of course, in Apple's case, EV equals market cap minus cash, i.e., your numbers turn out correct, but that's only because Apple has no debt (or any other claimants). Therefore you are correct that EV under Tim Cook -- the non-cash value of Apple -- has fallen. However, that explicitly assumes that Cook deserves no credit for the cash build-up. That is a bit unfair, since, after all the cash on the balance sheet does belong to Apple's owners. He could, for instance, have thrown it away on wasteful acquisitions, but has/did not.
4) The correct conceptual definition of EV is that it is a measure of the discounted value of total cash flows from the operating assets of a business (i.e., free cash flow to the firm, reflecting its operating cash flow net of its investing cash flow), where the discount rate is risk-adjusted, and reflects a weighted blend of the expected returns of every type of capital supplier to the business (called the 'weighted average cost of capital' or WACC).
But the reason, aka low iPhone sales, is not confirmed. And yet all the analysts are pushing that claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
YOU missed his point. He's primarily saying that Tim Cook is incompetent.
And he's confused in his argument, saying that Apple is becoming reactive, not proactive, in REACTING to the new competitive challenges.
Applelunatic is doing some heroic work here. Don't confuse him with misinterpretation.
I didn't say Tim Cook was incompetent, but I will say he's lost more value for any company in history during a bull market.
Why, with all the cash they have, all the resources they have, the money to buy anything they want are there discussions about iCloud's limitations and how Dropbox is better? Why did a company with all these resources release a maps app that was universally criticized just to remove the Google app only to bring it back? Why is Samsung expected to sell 100 million S4s in the first year, while the IP5 isn't on an implied pace to meet that level? Doesn't matter as much in US, but why are Asian consumers who want one, not able to buy an Apple product with a larger screen? All on Tim.
Looks like someone got this mixed up with androidinsider.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
But the reason, aka low iPhone sales, is not confirmed. And yet all the analysts are pushing that claim.
well Apple is 60-70% of their business. one would have to think the other lines of business dropped to almost nothing to think Apple's share hasn't dropped.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Applelunatic
"Could care less" has been used for over 3 decades in common use. Get over it. The English language is not based on rules set by grammarians and grammar nazis, but by how it's used by the average writers and speakers of the language.
Actually, English totally is. American isn't, but English is specifically based on rules set by a governing body. Spelling and Pronunciation.
I believe they also make the Surface and we know how that's (not) selling
Originally Posted by jdnc123
I would like a larger display iPhone. I know many people that would. Just because you don't doesn't mean others wouldn't buy them.
How can you tell others off for their beliefs and then turn around and claim yours are the majority?
I am amazed as the lack of basic finance knowledge. If you want to buy a widget business that costs $1 million and you put in your own money for half and borrow the other half, you have a capitalization that is 50% equity and 50% debt. Lets say you immediately take the company public, so the market cap is 500k and you have 500k of debt, Did the value of the business you bought for 1 million just drop to 500k because that is the market cap? Of course not, the value of the business is still $1 million., All companies choose to capitalize themselves differently. The only way to normalize things is if you look at enterprise value, which is mkt cap less net debt. That tells you what a business is worth by looking at capitalization on an apples-to-apples basis.
So a company for which you have to pay $110 million—the majority of which goes to pay off incurred debts—is a better investment than one for which you have to pay $100 million—none of which is debt?
Originally Posted by charlituna
Looks like someone got this mixed up with androidinsider.com
You mean "What the effing crap are you even talking about; stop spewing nonsense.com"
Hard site to get to, given that it has a semicolon in the URL.
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Actually, English totally is. American isn't, but English is specifically based on rules set by a governing body. Spelling and Pronunciation.
Of course American English is governed by the same scope of rules. Why would you say otherwise?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
You are confusing issues here. And being arrogant about it.
1) The market cap -- i.e., the value of a company's stock including its cash -- is a hugely relevant number. It is what the company is worth to its equity holders, and when people talk of 'value of a company' this is the number that they often mean. So it's quite reasonable that someone misunderstood that when you did not clarify or define it in your original post.
2) As an equity holder, assuming that I think that the company's cash is worth cash (i.e., the management won't waste it), the cash puts a floor on the market value of my equity. So it's a massively important asset to consider, especially in the case of a company such as Apple.
3) Your definition of 'enterprise value' (EV) is incorrect (see my highlighting above). However, your EV calculation happens to be correct in Apple's case. Let me explain. EV is NOT "market cap less net debt" as you defined it. It is market cap plus debt (plus the value of any other claims if any, e.g., preferreds) minus cash. In other words, EV market cap plus net debt. (You're the one that should look it up!).
Of course, in Apple's case, EV equals market cap minus cash, i.e., your numbers turn out correct, but that's only because Apple has no debt (or any other claimants). Therefore you are correct that EV under Tim Cook -- the non-cash value of Apple -- has fallen. However, that explicitly assumes that Cook deserves no credit for the cash build-up. That is a bit unfair, since, after all the cash on the balance sheet does belong to Apple's owners. He could, for instance, have thrown it away on wasteful acquisitions, but has/did not.
4) The correct conceptual definition of EV is that it is a measure of the discounted value of total cash flows from the operating assets of a business (i.e., free cash flow to the firm, reflecting its operating cash flow net of its investing cash flow), where the discount rate is risk-adjusted, and reflects a weighted blend of the expected returns of every type of capital supplier to the business (called the 'weighted average cost of capital' or WACC).
You're right on many fronts. Typo really, Apple has no debt, so I just think mkt cap less cash, but it is plus net debt. You are also correct to confirm that the non-cash value of Apple (which means the underlying business) has fallen under Tim Cook. Said differently, the business that was handed to him from Steve Jobs has dropped in value. That was my point.
Tim could have also created more value with that cash. If the best thing for the company is to earn 1% on the cash, that isn't good. Is it difficult that any acquisition, etc. will have a tough time moving the needle in the short term, but he needs to think 5-10 years out and deploy the cash today for those opportunities. Sitting on it isn't an option.
You 4th point is theoretical, but to put it in real world terms, the market is saying Apple's future cash flows have been reduced via competition and strategic decisions by far more than the $250 billion lost via the discounting of those cash flows.
And yes, I am being a bit arrogant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Applelunatic
One can go on and on about all the metrics that disprove him and the other trolls.
May I humbly request that we not automatically refer to everyone with whom we disagree as a "troll?" Just because someone has a contrary opinion or alternative view does not mean they are a troll.
One can be both wrong and sincere!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdnc123
Apple reported $13.06 billion in net income (profits) on $46 billion in revenue for the Dec '11 quarter. They reported $13.08 billion in revenue on $54.5 billion in revenue for the Dec. '12 quarter. An extra $8.5 billion in revenue resulted in an additional $20 million of profit. Yippee!
This is true. Apple's margins did fall quite a bit, and there's no way around that.
However, it is not clear if that was because of the extra costs incurred from all the new products and significant product upgrades that Apple introduced last year. In other words, it is not clear if that is temporary or permanent. I'd wait a couple of quarters before making that judgment. If similar margins are reported for the latest quarter too, I'd say that there is likely a margin problem -- let's wait until April 23.
Btw, Apple's average selling price for iPhones last quarter was the same as a year before ($641 v. $646); the ASP for Macs was actually $90 higher ($1360 v. $1269). However, the ASP for iPads was ~$100 lower, understandable because of the iPad Mini. I am guessing that's where the margins fell (given that it is a brand new product and given the extra costs involved in initial stages).
Quote:
Originally Posted by robogobo
He has no Mac Pro on his roadmap, so obviously this is all bunk.
Not yet. Despite Tim's vague hints, there still isn't anything to suggest we're actually getting one. If and when we do, THEN Kuo's roadmap will be bunk. At this point we don't know that he's wrong.
Originally Posted by v5v
Despite Tim's vague hints, there still isn't anything to suggest we're actually getting one.
His blatant statement on the topic sort of puts a cannon hole in that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Applelunatic
Another site that has the same figure as Yahoo: http://www.macroaxis.com/invest/ratio/AAPL--Current_Valuation
It's rather an amazing coincidence that all these sites are calculating "enterprise value" wrong, no?
Not necessarily. Last week many mainstream media sources reported the Apple iRing TV as if it were an announcement. Once something is on the wires, it's gospel. It is not at all inconceivable that several sources could misreport the value of a company. Be ESPECIALLY suspicious if they're all reporting the same number, because it means they're just re-reporting what someone else re-reported from someone else's mistake.
I'm not saying that's what's happening here, but I *AM* saying that it's not nearly as unlikely as people would like to believe. Sadly, headlines and a solid block of infotainment trump skepticism and careful journalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
How can you tell others off for their beliefs and then turn around and claim yours are the majority?
So a company for which you have to pay $110 million—the majority of which goes to pay off incurred debts—is a better investment than one for which you have to pay $100 million—none of which is debt?
You mean "What the effing crap are you even talking about; stop spewing nonsense.com"
Hard site to get to, given that it has a semicolon in the URL.
Of course American English is governed by the same scope of rules. Why would you say otherwise?
There is a market to make money buy producing larger phones. Apple is a public company whose objective should be to make the most profits it can for its investors. Your comment below implies nobody wants a larger display. I simply replied with my view that contrary to your belief, there are some who would like to see Apple make a larger display phone.
>>Maybe if you stopped pretending that people want a larger display, you'd know the answer to that.>>
>>So a company for which you have to pay $110 million—the majority of which goes to pay off incurred debts—is a better investment than one for which you have to pay $100 million—none of which is debt?>>
The theoretical $110 million company would only be worth that if the cash flows supported it, while theoretically the cash flows for the other company only support $100 million valuation. If you pay the debt off, you get the cash flow as the equity holder, so of course a company that produces more cash is worth more than one that generates less cash. This isn't meant to be insulting, but this is basic stuff, of course if you are willing to pay more for the entire company, debt or equity is meaningless, the value is the value. Why should differences in capitalization effect ultimate value? As someone else just stated the value of a company is its future cash flows discounted at the company's WACC. Debt in the cap structure reduces the WACC and thus increases the value to the equity. That is franky, just the way it is. Now is there a limit to how much debt a company should have? Of course. But debt in a capital structure typically creates more equity value, not less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdnc123
I didn't say Tim Cook was incompetent, but I will say he's lost more value for any company in history during a bull market.
Not 100% sure, but the inflation-adjusted loss for the Dutch East India Company between its peak and its bankruptcy may be the largest.... (at its peak, it was worth many trillions!).
Also, relative to its peak value of $625B, Microsoft may take that claim in modern times, having lost almost $400B.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdnc123
Wow. Buying back your stock is a financial "trick." Virtually every company in the world that is capable does it. The only possible reason not to buy it with the amount of cash they have is they think it isn't a good value and is going lower or they have better uses for the cash, such as organic or external growth opportunities including acquisitions. As Warren Buffet said recently, he told Steve Jobs that if you can buy a dollar for 80 cts, its a good thing and he should do it. Honestly, if you think they outperform expectations in their products this year and the stock launches back up, why in the heck would you not want to buy it before that happens, which would mean shareholders get a larger piece of the earnings from those new products.
The free pass given to Tim Cook on this site is baffling. We only need to look at another once well respected Apple executive (Ron Johnson) to see that nobody is infallible, including Tim. All these stories of delays, execution problems, etc are problematic and show signs of a company that is becoming more reactive than proactive; one that rested on its laurels and is now scrambling to address the competitive landscape. Who develops products and then finds out only a few months before expected launch that they can't manufacture those products. Apple is still the product innovation leader, but it is very difficult to argue that Samsung hasn't taken a huge lead in manufacturing innovation.....multiple products, multiple sizes, multiple offerings which recently have been released earlier than expected or even released without the market even knowing about it coming. Apple on the other hand has been delaying releases, releasing products than can't meet demand or releasing half-baked apps such as maps.
True test of a leader is how they react to challenges. Its easy to lead from the front of the pack. Tim has all the cash in the world, he has all the resources one could possibly ask for and yet the expectations are that Apple will yet again miss consensus earnings this quarter and next and if this story is true about further delays, they will miss Sept. consensus earnings also. Three straight earnings misses after the stock starts plummeting isn't going to help stem the bleeding, especially when the 'leader' of the company has the personality of a stone. Nobody believes in Tim and he will come under significant pressure if this article turns out to be true. Tim was the one on the last earnings call who stated that analysts had it all wrong and no single supply chain data point could be read to mean production was slowing....well we've seen Foxconn numbers and we've seen sales estimates get massively cut. It is baffling that the analysts appear to have potentially been more in touch with what sales were doing than the CEO. We will find out if that is the case in a few weeks. If Tim guides the next quarter well below consensus and discusses weak sales after making a point last call to say the analysts didn't know what they were talking about, he is going to look like a real moron.
Stock is probably dead money at best for the next year with a buyback. Without one, it will drop > 50% from peak value in one of the biggest bull markets in awhile. A lot of people here have their heads in the sand if they think this isn't an Apple specific issue. Yes, earnings we huge last quarter, but the multiple has seen massive compression as the expectation is earnings will go negative this year and Tim 'No Communication' Cook has given no signs that isn't the case or that he even realizes the competitive threats they face. Samsung record earnings, Google record earnings, both near all-time highs while Apple languishes. This is on Apple, not analysts, not Wall Street. Put up or shut up. If Tim can't grow earnings while his competition can, he needs to go.
In that entire fucking wall of text, nary a single factual statement. Pathetic. What's also pathetic is that you've decided to define and judge Cook's performance basely solely on stock price, which is hardly an indicator of things, instead of all the other metrics directly correlating to Apple's success (ie. sales, revenues, profit, customer satisfaction, etc) which have all been the most stellar in Apple's history under Cook. But wait, I guess that would go against your forced thesis. Instead of using this hard, conclusive data, you decide to judge Apple's worth and success solely by the 'expectations' of analysts who have historically shown not to know their heads from their asses, time and time again. Not only that, you demand that Apple make their product decisions solely for the goal of temporarily satisfying this fickle group. You're honestly everything that's wrong with this industry, and all I can hope is that people with your mentality are nowhere near Apple's decision making process. Your thinking, and your philosophy of whats important would definitely cause a company like Apple, who knows how to filter the noise from the substance, to burn to the ground. Because all you have the ability to focus on is that noise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Not 100% sure, but the inflation-adjusted loss for the Dutch East India Company between its peak and its bankruptcy may be the largest.... (at its peak, it was worth many trillions!).
Also, relative to its peak value of $625B, Microsoft may take that claim in modern times, having lost almost $400B.
I'm being cute by saying 'in a bull market.' MSFT, Worldcom, others may have lost more but that was while the markets were imploding around them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
In that entire fucking wall of text, nary a single factual statement. Pathetic.
Inisightful retort.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
Quote:
In that entire fucking wall of text, nary a single factual statement.
Thumbs down.