Barclays downgrades rating on Apple stock due to maturing smartphone market, tells investors to 'ste

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 93
    herbapouherbapou Posts: 2,222member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

    Comparing Apples stock price from 2011 to present to Microsoft's stock price during the 1999/2000 tech bubble?

     

    how ridiculous can you get.


     

    The ridiculous part is P/E based, those are 2 completly different stories.  The 2000 tech bubble was... a bubble with very high P/E stocks. Apple P/E at the 700 peak was like 17?  Not even close of being a bubble.

     

    Tesla, amazon, twitter, facebook, ... those are stocks in bubble mode.

  • Reply 62 of 93
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,511member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

     

     

    True.  and imo Apple will be able to pull off some growth, even if its only 10% per year.


    Agreed.  I'm a happy long.

     

    Thompson

  • Reply 63 of 93
    Working at Barclay's must be great. They can say whatever they want and bear absolutely no responsibility. Name one other company that doesnt have to answer for lousy products in one form or another. Maybe if I get my PhD I'll apply for a job there.
  • Reply 64 of 93

    Seriously ! - does anyone actually know what value Barclays produces other than to rip people off from their hard earned cash ? - I wouldn't be surprised that they are forcing down the share price so they can reap a huge profit at a later date. I would take them about as seriously as a drunk sailor. All vinegar and wind.

  • Reply 65 of 93
    kibitzerkibitzer Posts: 1,114member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

     

    Investors have been stepping aside from Apple since the infamous share price fiasco in 2012 when Apple handed over the smartphone market to Samsung.  There's probably no recovery from that.  It definitely left Wall Street and Apple shareholders with a bitter taste in their mouths.  Most successful companies with wads of cash don't give their market share position away that easily.  Even after this recent buyback Apple shares are still stuttering and misfiring like some ancient engine with bad plugs and fouled carbs.  Everything Apple does is like pouring sugar into a gas tank and the share price tanks.  Meanwhile, Google is running like a world-class F1 racer leaving Apple sucking fumes.

     

    Apple really should have gone after Tesla to show that it means business.  Every time Apple's share price moves up a bit, an analyst or two will jump in and say Apple has gone up TOO much and downgrade the stock.  Apple's iPhone and tablet business has been completely overwhelmed by half-priced Android devices.  Most consumers simply can't resist really cheap devices because they think they're getting a bargain.  I'm not sure whether Apple deserves a downgrade or not but I always expect it to happen.  The stock has no momentum whatsoever.  It will move up and bit and then boom, analyst downgrade and share collapse.  It's really a pain to be an Apple shareholder nowadays while the rest of the market is on a roll.  At least I can count on the dividends to see me through.  Apple refuses to play Wall Street's game and would rather sit on a mountain of cash than excite Wall Street investors.  That's the breaks.  Apple can't seem to increase institutional ownership which pretty much shows Apple has stagnated.


    Odoo-doo, have you stopped to consider that if Apple acquired Tesla, it would actually have to manage it? You talk a lot about Tesla, but I haven't seen you present a rational business case as to how that would turn out successfully. Let's put that bright idea of yours back in the oven to bake a while longer.

  • Reply 66 of 93
    gtbuzzgtbuzz Posts: 129member
    Interesting comment on the part of Barclays Analist - one thing about it, they will reverse their opinion as soon as they anticipate being wrong or need to make a revision and no one will remember that what they said or hold them accountable. Now what was it Barclays was wrong about in the past and was there something they were accused of manipulating ? Let me think . . . After Barclays' comment, we may may not see any new significant products in 2014 from Apple. We all know they are incorrect, but just waiting to make a revised revision.
  • Reply 67 of 93
    kibitzerkibitzer Posts: 1,114member

    Now, as to all these enraged howls that Apple isn't somehow still the sine qua non among investment strategies, go take cold showers. Apple continues to be a great company, but it is no longer upsetting as many "apple carts" (pardon the pun) and disrupting as many businesses and categories as it did in the last decade. Over the next few years, a transition may well take place from an insanely explosive growth company and stock to a steady, income-generating business.

     

    Hey, I made a lot of money from owning AAPL between late 2008 and mid-2012. And I would have made more if I'd bought in earlier, but nothing's perfect. But let's face it. If you bought in 2012 (as that investing genius Odoo-doo appears to have done), you were late to the party and your holding got trashed. Buy AAPL now and you're unlikely to enjoy the same rate of ROI. That's not necessarily bad. Volatility at this point is down. If you buy AAPL, you're unlikely to reap the same gains as that overheated period that ended 2011, but the risk is less and you'll not so likely end up sitting around, licking your wounds and endlessly complaining (does that resemble anybody, Odoo-doo?).

     

    Let's read Barclay's latest with a little more insight. I take it to mean that if you're now looking for more aggressive stock gains in the tech sector, they're suggesting that you might want to scan the horizon for different opportunities - enterprises that resemble where Apple was 10 years ago - embarking on the rapid growth phase of the business cycle.

  • Reply 68 of 93
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,321member
    philboogie wrote: »
    With Facebook having some 1.2B users, wouldn't that market me saturated as well? Why hasn't their stock been down rated¿

    They are growing revenue. Which is what these companies do. Get customers. Monetise later.
    focher wrote: »
    You're on the wrong forum if you own APPL stock. The fundamental issue is that AAPL's valuation is already artificially low. When you remove cash, it's P/E is less than 8. For sure, a company's actual value versus the stockmarket's valuation is not going to match up because most stock traders are nothing more than gamblers. Over the next 10 years, AAPL will continue to increase in actual value. Whether the stock price reflects that is, as always, a guess.

    The stock market isn't fond of cash, isn't that after all why people urge a buy back? To get higher EPS? well the EPS would be higher but the cash per share should balance it out.

    So why was DED eulogising about stock buy backs at the weekend? Because the stock market doesn't rate cash, the p/e is too low.
  • Reply 69 of 93
    nagromme wrote: »
    I can't speak to the "current range" or specific time frames, and I'm sure Apple will be a success for a very long time to come--both in terms of income and user satisfaction (the latter meaning the most to me). They'll also have some big product hits and some "flops" (just like under Jobs--although an Apple hardware "flop" is a success most companies would kill to have).

    BUT... I'm certain that Apple's iPhone-spurred profit growth will never be repeated. Smartphones, as re-invented by Apple, are in a unique position to be a fairly pricey product that almost everyone on Earth could potentially use. (Cars could be similar, except limited to a smaller number of buyers and kept running much longer. And lots of cheap products like toothbrushes count... but have little profit.)

    I don't think anyone--not Apple, not anyone--will ever invent a product that is as WIDELY desired as a smartphone, AND costs as much. A watch? A TV? Health tracker? In-car systems? Smaller markets, smaller price tags. They could be successes, but none like the iPhone. Tablets? Yes, as they replace computers for most people (gradually) that's pretty big--but still not as big as smartphones. More people will have their own personal phone than their own personal tablet. Apple can hold onto the huge market they created (high-end modern smartphones), and that's terrific, but that market can't grow forever and no other product can have the same kind of market. I just don't see it (and that's fine by me).

    So the stock SHOULD reflect that Apple's done something that can't be repeated. Which is why I don't consider stock price a measure of success as much as it is a measure of the market's craziness (and the influence of PR/press/manipulation). But even a purely sane, fair stock price wouldn't rise forever.

    What price would reflect that reality? I don't know--probably higher than it is! I think people have underestimated Apple for a long time (or pretended to). But whatever the fair price may be, it can't rise forever at the same rate the iPhone caused. (And for the record, I don't think the iPhone growth is anywhere near over yet--even if Apple stays away from the profit-free bottom end. And the iPad growth is just beginning.)

    Before the iPhone came out, no one saw a use for smartphones. I had the Palm Treo but I only used it for texts and calls. Maybe the internet once but that was a hassle. Before the iPad came out , most people declared it a horrible idea cause why the hell would anyone need a big ass iPhone?? So any product they haven't attempted yet and you already decided would not be a difference maker for them is a story that's been told before.
  • Reply 70 of 93
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,321member
    justp1ayin wrote: »
    Before the iPhone came out, no one saw a use for smartphones. I had the Palm Treo but I only used it for texts and calls. Maybe the internet once but that was a hassle. Before the iPad came out , most people declared it a horrible idea cause why the hell would anyone need a big ass iPhone?? So any product they haven't attempted yet and you already decided would not be a difference maker for them is a sorry that's been told before.

    Let's see what happens on Cooks reign. I have the sinking feeling that they've moved into health because the CEO is a health nut, and out of TV because he doesn't watch TV. Jobs liked music - and so we got the iPod. The number of people interested in music is universal, in health gadgets not so much.
  • Reply 71 of 93
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,321member
    Future historians would say the game was lost - or not won - in the failure to actually price a plastic phone competively. And the lack of the big screen. And one product refresh a year. Apple became the biggest company in the world but didn't act like it.

    Anyway they're hardly doomed. But neither is the future rosy.
  • Reply 72 of 93
    asdasd wrote: »
    Let's see what happens on Cooks reign. I have the sinking feeling that they've moved into health because the CEO is a health nut, and out of TV because he doesn't watch TV. Jobs liked music - and so we got the iPod. The number of people interested in music is universal, in health gadgets not so much.

    That's true, but before the iPod, how many songs did you own on your computer. I fought off an iPod for years because it was stupid to me. I had my cd book with all the booklets, it was great. Sure music is universal, but downloading songs...? Not so much, it was for a few computer guys or those of us who bootlegged.... There no such thing as a 100% market reach, and if you invent something people already knew they wanted, they probably already got it and you lost that game.
  • Reply 73 of 93
    froodfrood Posts: 771member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JayTee View Post

     

    You forgot the valuation part, FB is valued at 53 times earnings in 2014 vs AAPL's 13 (before discounting for cash). Yes, FB grew faster than AAPL last year (who knows for how long), but their valuation assumes that they will grow something like 4 times faster than AAPL for the next couple of years. They might just do that, but assuming zero growth for AAPL is perhaps too conservative.


     

    Didn't really forget it.  The future outlook is a huge part (maybe even the biggest part) of a stocks valuation.  That's why analysts tend to be out to lunch quite frequently (when looked at in hindsight).  Their job is literally to predict the future.  FB does have a high P/E.  If their profits or even their revenue flatten out, their stock is going to tank and fast.  Their growth is already tapering, but that is projected in their valuation- the main 'surprise' that boosted their shares was how well they were able to capitalize on and profitize their advertising.  Even with slowing userbase growth they were able to make even more money than expected.

     

    You are right, assuming zero growth for AAPL may be too conservative.  Consider also that it might be far too generous.  Apple would have loved zero profit growth in 2013.  They made 5,000,000,000 (about double facebooks profits) LESS than the year prior.  That 5,000,000,000 less was despite having record device sales AND record revenues.  They did spend about 1,000,000,000 more in R&D so you could shave that down to $4,000,000,000 but it just highlights the newer challenges the now supersized Apple faces relative to when it was smaller.

     

    They own 80% of the profits in a market that isn't growing much.  That is a tremendous thing for income, but not so great a thing for growth.  Even if they are very aggressive and release that big size phone and people flock to it, are they really going to capture 90%?  Probably not.  Even if they did despite it being a huge dollar value, it is still percentage wise a modest gain for Apple.

     

    Now instead of assuming the upside for Apple, assume the downside.  Subsidies make sense in a growth market to attract consumers.  In a flat market with everyone giving subsidies there is no competitive advantage in doing so.  Carriers are simply just handing money to phone makers and not getting the same return.  T-Mobile is already able to offer better plans than the competition because they aren't paying the 'subsidy tax'  The competition is poising themselves to follow suit- they have to prevent continuing losses to their lower priced competitior.  What happens when an iPhone and an Android phone are no longer 'about 100-300 dollars' each,  but instead consumers are faced with buying a Nexus phone for $350 or an iPhone for $700.    Apple's margins are going to collapse fast or they aren't going to be selling record numbers of phones in the blink of an eye.  With 75% of their profits reliant on that subsidy model Apple would need one hell of a home run just to make up for their decline in revenues from their phone stream.

     

    Either way, you have to predict what *you* think the future holds for any company and invest accordingly.

     

    Also either way, I think its almost better for Apple fans to detach themselves from the stock and stock price.  No matter what their stock price does, Apple simply makes and builds great products.  I think in either of the two scenarios above it is a given that Apple would continue to build the same great products they have always built, whether their stock is trading at $400 or $1000.

  • Reply 74 of 93
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,321member
    Why 75%. There aren't subsidies in Europe ( not in the same way anyway).
  • Reply 75 of 93
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post





    You should ask a mod to make this a sticky to every thread on the topic of (Apple) stock; I think you're very spot on.

     

    Won't help.

     

    Just read the replies after that comment.

     

    Proof enough.

  • Reply 76 of 93
    bigmac2 wrote: »
    Yet another anal-y-sis 

    I think there is something that report overlooked, the actual hardware account for a fraction of Apple revenu.  Apple is makings a lot more money selling digital media and apps than selling iOS or Mac hardware. 

    Why must you tempt us with your tasty avatar?
  • Reply 77 of 93
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,526member
    sog35 wrote: »
    Funny Barclays.

    Look here they have 337,820 in Bearish options. (look at bearish Option trades table)

    http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2014/02/18/apple-hedge-whale-wisdom/

    Ridiculous that they have a massive Bear position and then they release a massive bearish analysis note.

    This really makes me wish Apple would spend every dollar they have available to buy back shares right now.
    Short squeeze Barclays into a grease spot.
  • Reply 78 of 93
    total wrote: »
    well, after earnings report on January stock recovered faster than i expected, so this "correction" is nothing new for everyone who owns AAPL. Im curious what will happen in next weeks, because:

    monday - samsung galaxy S5 (potential downside for AAPL)
    friday - shareholder meeting (potential down / upside)

    and probably most importantly, overall market correction is waiting, but here is possible that if market will fall 10%, AAPL can fall lower 5% or so.

    I always assume the worst, too, but I think that when Samsung introduced the Galaxy S4, AAPL went up 3 or 4%.
  • Reply 79 of 93
    b9botb9bot Posts: 238member

    Stupid is as stupid does that's what barkley's is, plain stupid! There are a lot more smartphone buyers that haven't bought yet and Apple has a lot more to give yet. Believing theses clowns that call themselves Anal-ists. Apple had the 5th largest quarter in history most of it from iPhone sales.

    So now suddenly there's going to be a drop? There's way more to come for a drop unless you believe these clowns. Google keeps climbing with Android getting more and more malware ridden, they missed there forecast and yet there stock goes up. Anal-ists are so full of it!

  • Reply 80 of 93
    512ke512ke Posts: 782member
    Some analysts are good. You gotta go with cantor Fitzgerald on Apple today. Google their report on China Mobile's January spike.
Sign In or Register to comment.