My favorite is that just a few weeks ago, the share price was $490 and Misek had a $405 target. Yet his recommendation was 'hold'. Why in the world would anyone hold a stock which was expected to lose 17% of its value?
In otherwords, right about where it should have been all along.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leavingthebigG
Yes, several analysts are raising estimates. The strange thing is several analysts say Apple will prove it is innovative again by developing a television and/or watch.
It is like the analysts cannot see beyond their constant failures about a television and watch. Why is it so important that Apple create a television or watch? And why are those two categories the only ways Apple can prove it is innovative "again"?
Over the weekend the USA Today published an article with an analyst stating the 64-bit microprocessor showed Apple's innovativeness and he felt Apple had something big for the future. High praise coming from an analyst. Then the analyst flips in the opposite direction to say Apple's innovativeness was slowing because if Steve was still alive, Apple would have created two new product categories by now
I had to start from the top of the article again to confirm I had read and understood the analyst's quotes. Oh well.
Because if these people were technologists, we wouldn't know their names, and they would be failures. They can only see what people tell them they should see. In other words, everyone is saying a TV is next (Steve finally cracked it, remember?) and a SmartWatch.
Plus, Apple has a proven track record of taking existing products (MP3 Player, Smartphone, Tablet computer) and making the entire market something people care about.
Without Apple, I believe we would:
All be using some form of physical disc for music still, perhaps DVD-Audio and smaller discs
Smartphones would not have the penetration rates they do today, and they would all have physical keyboards and plastic styluses
Tablet computers would still be a niche market touted by Bill Gates
Apple didn't do these things first, they did them in a way that made sense, though only after we saw them. So, what better way to "predict" what Apple will do this to next?
For those that focus on the specifics of the technology, you notice they always claim that Apple isn't "innovative" or that someone else did it first.
?Fine, I can often concede that point. Where Apple innovates is taking something and making it "just work" without thought.
As an example, there is an article this morning on MacWorld. About a "FaceTime only" device question. The author tells a quick story of giving an iPad filled with one book, and uncluttered (apps hidden on later pages) to a 100 year old relative. From the article, the most telling way I could explain how Apple innovates.
Quote:
“Here Lew, I found a book I think you’ll like. Try reading it.”
With that he read down the first page and—exactly as Apple planned it—he swiped to the left to “turn the page.”
I say again, the existential conundrum that is the equity analyst: If these jokers are so good at calling stock prices, why are they trumpeting their predictions instead of just keeping it to themselves and become gazillionaires by making a killing in the stock market? The existence of the profession defies logic. Unless what they really are providing is entertainment not expert knowledge. Well, they do get referred to as clowns and bozos.
Why do the analysts keep pushing for an oversized phone? To meet their oversized egos?
It's mostly because Samsung and LG and HTC sell oversized phones. So there must be a market there, and therefore Apple should chase that market, regardless of whether their users want a larger screen or not. (Some of them do, a number of tech pundits have complained that the iPhone screen is still too small.) Also, with not consideration what a larger screen built to Apple's standard might do to the price.
Meanwhile, Apple continues to sell more of it's one size phone than Samsung sells of its larger phones. (Luckily, Samsung has a variety of sizes and feature sets to help make up the shortfall.)
It's mostly because Samsung and LG and HTC sell oversized phones. So there must be a market there, and therefore Apple should chase that market, regardless of whether their users want a larger screen or not. (Some of them do, a number of tech pundits have complained that the iPhone screen is still too small.) Also, with not consideration what a larger screen built to Apple's standard might do to the price.
It shouldn't change the price, at least if you believe the idiots who have jobs as analysts. They say that Apple can make a product with a much larger screen, maintain the existing quality, lower the price dramatically, and still maintain their current margins. /s
Comments
My favorite is that just a few weeks ago, the share price was $490 and Misek had a $405 target. Yet his recommendation was 'hold'. Why in the world would anyone hold a stock which was expected to lose 17% of its value?
If he just keeps saying there's going to be a new TV soon, he'll eventually be right. Then he can say I told you so! /sarcasm
Not really fair, but still the best comment of the day.
Misek price target the last 12 months:
$900 then
$405 then
$600
Really?
In otherwords, right about where it should have been all along.
Yes, several analysts are raising estimates. The strange thing is several analysts say Apple will prove it is innovative again by developing a television and/or watch.
It is like the analysts cannot see beyond their constant failures about a television and watch. Why is it so important that Apple create a television or watch? And why are those two categories the only ways Apple can prove it is innovative "again"?
Over the weekend the USA Today published an article with an analyst stating the 64-bit microprocessor showed Apple's innovativeness and he felt Apple had something big for the future. High praise coming from an analyst. Then the analyst flips in the opposite direction to say Apple's innovativeness was slowing because if Steve was still alive, Apple would have created two new product categories by now
I had to start from the top of the article again to confirm I had read and understood the analyst's quotes. Oh well.
Because if these people were technologists, we wouldn't know their names, and they would be failures. They can only see what people tell them they should see. In other words, everyone is saying a TV is next (Steve finally cracked it, remember?) and a SmartWatch.
Plus, Apple has a proven track record of taking existing products (MP3 Player, Smartphone, Tablet computer) and making the entire market something people care about.
Without Apple, I believe we would:
Apple didn't do these things first, they did them in a way that made sense, though only after we saw them. So, what better way to "predict" what Apple will do this to next?
For those that focus on the specifics of the technology, you notice they always claim that Apple isn't "innovative" or that someone else did it first.
?Fine, I can often concede that point. Where Apple innovates is taking something and making it "just work" without thought.
As an example, there is an article this morning on MacWorld. About a "FaceTime only" device question. The author tells a quick story of giving an iPad filled with one book, and uncluttered (apps hidden on later pages) to a 100 year old relative. From the article, the most telling way I could explain how Apple innovates.
“Here Lew, I found a book I think you’ll like. Try reading it.”
With that he read down the first page and—exactly as Apple planned it—he swiped to the left to “turn the page.”
I didn’t see the iPad for the next three hours.
Source Article
I say again, the existential conundrum that is the equity analyst: If these jokers are so good at calling stock prices, why are they trumpeting their predictions instead of just keeping it to themselves and become gazillionaires by making a killing in the stock market? The existence of the profession defies logic. Unless what they really are providing is entertainment not expert knowledge. Well, they do get referred to as clowns and bozos.
I wonder if he plays the banjo.
Who would M Bi.ch Lee would now call on Fast Money? This Loser turned bullish!
I swear these analysts just pick a recommendation out of a hat and then form an opinion.
No, I believe it is from the other end.
'Skate By'
What a fuc**** dumb man. I can't imagine why anyone would hire Jefferies to manage their money
Meanwhile, Apple continues to sell more of it's one size phone than Samsung sells of its larger phones. (Luckily, Samsung has a variety of sizes and feature sets to help make up the shortfall.)
So true. Ok, they pull recommendations out of a hat and pull numbers from the other place.
Its the same place. It just so happens they keep their hat in the place they normally have their head stuck.
It shouldn't change the price, at least if you believe the idiots who have jobs as analysts. They say that Apple can make a product with a much larger screen, maintain the existing quality, lower the price dramatically, and still maintain their current margins. /s