I've said this many times before and will say it again. They're incredibly poor in conveying their sense of the future of the business, and more importantly, managing market expectations.
Let me explain. If I am a working-my-butt-off manager at Apple that delivered the incredible feat of selling 51M in iPhone sales last quarter, I am probably pretty pissed off and dejected tonight. My stock lost $45 per share in value. Why? The market expected me to deliver 55M. Just casually, as though 51M involved no blood, sweat, tears. And nobody out there, least of all Apple's senior leaders such as Cook and Oppenheimer, bothered to stick their necks out to try and manage or talk down such ridiculous expectations.
If you've spent half a day working for a real business, you'll know that there's nothing that can be more demoralizing.
That, in my book, is a major leadership failure on their part. Inexcusable.
Unrealized losses.
They did have a range of expectations. They can't help it if WS ignores that range.
Where the hell does this come from? Apple had more than twice the revenue for the same period as MSFT and about twice the profit. It's got a $200 Billion higher market cap valuation than MSFT. Apple has more than twice as much cash as MSFT. In what world do you have a perspective that APPL is "now virtually the same as MSFT"?
Apple has over twice the market cap as IBM. Apple reported more than twice the revenue and more than twice the profits as IBM during the same time period. Apple finished with over $150 Billion in cash, while IBM has about 28 Billion of net debt. In what world do you have a perspective that APPL is "now virtually the same as IBM"?
Oh wait, did you mean "virtually the same as IBM and Microsoft COMBINED"?
Ok, I could maybe see that.
He obviously meant that AAPL is not a growth stock anymore. You can agree or disagree, but don't change the subject.
I know reading comprehension is hard, but I thought the context was pretty clear. Apple is like IBM and MSFT because the growth has stopped and future value will come from increased dividends and share buybacks. Is that too hard to grasp? Just because Apple is larger doesn't mean it can't be similar. Good God I feel like I explaining something to a stupid child.
you and they are not "investors" if you buy based on expectations of future growth beyond overall economic growth - you're all "speculators." "investors" buy instead based on reasonable expectations of rates of return on their equity. in the case of stocks, the P/E ratio that once upon a time was the main criteria but that now has been supplanted by, essentially, hype.
all the Wall St. people looking for a quick buck like to fancy themselves as "investors" to the unknowing public, but that's BS. it's a game, and the "analysts" are their enablers.
being a speculator is fine, just don't glorify it. go buy some more Amazon, a stock that is totally priced based on its "future" by speculators (and suckers) because today it's just a low-margain internet supermarket business - and always will be.
You do realize that very few people want a larger iPhone. Globally the response to the large Androids has been very cool to say the least.
You are just wrong. It used to be that if one would look around at a good restaurant at lunch time, all one would see was iPhones. Now, a lot of much bigger android devices (never saw a windows phone yet...)
if flat profits is evidence than Amazon it's not growing and their stock is WAY overvalued.
Firstly, what does that have to do with Apple? Secondly, Amazon is very good about telling people what they are doing with the money they spend, so they have a credible growth story (warehouses, now that they are losing the sales tax exemption, better kindles, drones dropping your coconut water order on the lawn, instant video, etc, etc). As has been pointed out by some here, Cook and Co might HAVE a growth story, but they seem not to able to tell it, and what we have seen product-wise over the last couple of years has been slow incremental improvement. Not at all a bad thing, but not likely to inspire amazonian valuations.
People are caterwauling on both sides of the fence, and not looking at the real picture here.
I am not responding to any specific comment, but I believe that Cook and Oppenheimer have failed terribly.
Not because they haven't grown the business. Not because they don't have serious innovations in the pipeline. Not because they're not passionate about the company or its products or its customers. Not because they aren't anything but superb managers of many aspects of the business. Not because they're disengaged from value creation. None of these.
I've said this many times before and will say it again. They're incredibly poor in conveying their sense of the future of the business, and more importantly, managing market expectations.
Let me explain. If I am a working-my-butt-off manager at Apple that delivered the incredible feat of selling 51M in iPhone sales last quarter, I am probably pretty pissed off and dejected tonight. My stock lost $45 per share in value. Why? The market expected me to deliver 55M. Just casually, as though 51M involved no blood, sweat, tears. And nobody out there, least of all Apple's senior leaders such as Cook and Oppenheimer, bothered to stick their necks out to try and manage or talk down such ridiculous expectations.
If you've spent half a day working for a real business, you'll know that there's nothing that can be more demoralizing.
That, in my book, is a major leadership failure on their part. Inexcusable.
What is Cook supposed to do? Come out and say that Wall Street's estimates are wildly inaccurate? How exactly could/should Cook have managed expectations? And what exactly should Cook be saying about the future? Apple is never going spill details on future products. People need to stop expecting that.
Firstly, what does that have to do with Apple? Secondly, Amazon is very good about telling people what they are doing with the money they spend, so they have a credible growth story (warehouses, now that they are losing the sales tax exemption, better kindles, drones dropping your coconut water order on the lawn, instant video, etc, etc). As has been pointed out by some here, Cook and Co might HAVE a growth story, but they seem not to able to tell it, and what we have seen product-wise over the last couple of years has been slow incremental improvement. Not at all a bad thing, but not likely to inspire amazonian valuations.
If the argument is that flat profits = no growth then how does one explain Amazon which basically has been running profitless for 17 years?
Are you completely dense? Their revenue is DECLINING, and their guidance is 10% below estimates. Are you whelmed yet?
Revenue didn't decline this quarter. And it should be no surprise at all that it will decline in the quarter after the holiday quarter. Guidance is 10% below who's estimates? The Wall Street consensus that was way off in their iPhone numbers?
Comments
Meh. Already factored in.
Unrealized losses.
They did have a range of expectations. They can't help it if WS ignores that range.
Sigh. Typical of the vapid response I expected from guys like you.
You're welcome to live in your own planet.
Can anyone explain to me why AAPL is down 8% aftermarket? Seriously now.
Aftermarket moves don't mean that much, but their forward guidance is underwhelming.
Where the hell does this come from? Apple had more than twice the revenue for the same period as MSFT and about twice the profit. It's got a $200 Billion higher market cap valuation than MSFT. Apple has more than twice as much cash as MSFT. In what world do you have a perspective that APPL is "now virtually the same as MSFT"?
Apple has over twice the market cap as IBM. Apple reported more than twice the revenue and more than twice the profits as IBM during the same time period. Apple finished with over $150 Billion in cash, while IBM has about 28 Billion of net debt. In what world do you have a perspective that APPL is "now virtually the same as IBM"?
Oh wait, did you mean "virtually the same as IBM and Microsoft COMBINED"?
Ok, I could maybe see that.
He obviously meant that AAPL is not a growth stock anymore. You can agree or disagree, but don't change the subject.
I know reading comprehension is hard, but I thought the context was pretty clear. Apple is like IBM and MSFT because the growth has stopped and future value will come from increased dividends and share buybacks. Is that too hard to grasp? Just because Apple is larger doesn't mean it can't be similar. Good God I feel like I explaining something to a stupid child.
That's because you are. I feel your pain
He obviously meant that AAPL is not a growth stock anymore.
A company that continues to grow isn’t a grower?
you and they are not "investors" if you buy based on expectations of future growth beyond overall economic growth - you're all "speculators." "investors" buy instead based on reasonable expectations of rates of return on their equity. in the case of stocks, the P/E ratio that once upon a time was the main criteria but that now has been supplanted by, essentially, hype.
all the Wall St. people looking for a quick buck like to fancy themselves as "investors" to the unknowing public, but that's BS. it's a game, and the "analysts" are their enablers.
being a speculator is fine, just don't glorify it. go buy some more Amazon, a stock that is totally priced based on its "future" by speculators (and suckers) because today it's just a low-margain internet supermarket business - and always will be.
You have NO idea what you are talking about.
You do realize that very few people want a larger iPhone. Globally the response to the large Androids has been very cool to say the least.
You are just wrong. It used to be that if one would look around at a good restaurant at lunch time, all one would see was iPhones. Now, a lot of much bigger android devices (never saw a windows phone yet...)
There is no evidence that the end of growth is near.
Flat profits Y/Y is not evidence? It is not PROOF, but it is evidence.
Oh do tell. Please tell us how Cook and company could have managed expectations, oh wise man. Other that giving a range of their expectations.
Oh do tell. Please tell us how Cook and company could have managed expectations, oh wise man. Other that giving a range of their expectations.
Pay me $400M and I'll tell you how.
Oh do tell. Please tell us how Cook and company could have managed expectations, oh wise man. Other that giving a range of their expectations.
He doesn't have to tell you. He is not being paid the big bucks to do their jobs, they are.
if flat profits is evidence than Amazon it's not growing and their stock is WAY overvalued.
Firstly, what does that have to do with Apple? Secondly, Amazon is very good about telling people what they are doing with the money they spend, so they have a credible growth story (warehouses, now that they are losing the sales tax exemption, better kindles, drones dropping your coconut water order on the lawn, instant video, etc, etc). As has been pointed out by some here, Cook and Co might HAVE a growth story, but they seem not to able to tell it, and what we have seen product-wise over the last couple of years has been slow incremental improvement. Not at all a bad thing, but not likely to inspire amazonian valuations.
Underwhelming compared to what?
Are you completely dense? Their revenue is DECLINING, and their guidance is 10% below estimates. Are you whelmed yet?