Market watchers see buying opportunity as Apple shares slide after June quarter miss

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 61
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,191member
    rogifan wrote: »
    You think Wall Street is homophobic? I find that hard to believe. Apple stock reached record highs after Tim came out so I don't think Wall Street gives a shit about Tim Cook's private life.

    Yep. Traders care about money and making more money for themselves. That's it.
  • Reply 22 of 61
    wigbywigby Posts: 690member

    Market watchers have been seeing Apple stock as a buying opportunity for years now. They continually raise their targets and that has absolutely no connection to the market's response. Sometimes the market seems random and sometimes it punishes Apple. I rarely ever see Apple rewarded for doing what a good company should do. Perhaps they should just all lower their targets and see what happens. It couldn't be any worse.

  • Reply 23 of 61
    AI why would you even put that as a title? Now the news aggregators will lump this "article" in with all the other "...Earnings Miss" articles. For shame.
  • Reply 24 of 61
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    Yep. Traders care about money and making more money for themselves. That's it.

    The only thing Tim Cook getting involved in gay rights stuff does is get Apple on the front page of the drudge report.

    1zxpeyq.jpg
  • Reply 25 of 61

    Dumb headline, AI. 

     

    But who cares. Many of us are already up relative to the purchase price after-hours yesterday.....

  • Reply 26 of 61
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

    This is how full of shit these analysis are.

     

    When Apple released earnings in April here was the estimates for the June Quarter:

     

    Q3 revenue forecast: $46-$48 billion versus $47 billion expected



    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-q2-earnings-2015-4#ixzz3gd4LRXDA

     

     

    So analysists were expecting June quarter revenue to be $47 billion in April.

     

    But as we got to May, Jun, and Jul they kept on raising their revenue expectation until it was impossible for Apple to reach it (over $50 billion)

     

     

     

    That right there tells you this is manipulation.  Why the HELL did the analysist raise their revenue expectation from $47 billion to $50 billion since April?  The only reason is to either save face if Apple had another blowout or to make it impossible for Apple to exceed 'expectation'


    You are correct about the numbers, i.e., the $47B expectation v. $46-$48B Apple guided in Q2.

     

    However, it's silly to suggest that there was 'manipulation.' These revised assessments were not only totally public (here's, for example, an excellent link: http://fortune.com/2015/07/22/here-are-the-best-and-worst-apple-analysts-for-q3-2015/), but these upward revisions were made by many different analysts. (Also, it's a stretch to attribute it all to that Kuo-whatever guy).

     

    I really think we need to stop with these overwrought conspiracy theories. It's nothing more than analyst herding, given their not wanting to be wrong when everyone else is right. The cost of being wrong when everyone else is wrong is substantially less than the cost of being wrong when everyone else is right. That's what leads to herding. Not much more than that.

  • Reply 27 of 61
    karmadavekarmadave Posts: 315member

    Apple is one of the most highly speculated stocks and what's the old adage. 'Buy on expectations. Sell on results'. I think Apple had another spectacular earnings quarter. Especially for a Q3 which is historically one of their softest quarters. The only blotch, in my opinion, is the decline in iPad sales. I think Apple needs to turn this around as well as have a blow-out next iPhone launch. Apple Watch will be a big (FY)Q1 seller as many will buy these for holiday gifts. In the big scheme of things Apple builds products for consumers and not the whims of Wall Street Analysts. I am still kicking myself for all the Apple stock I owned back in the day. (full disclosure: I worked at Apple from 1987 - 1992)

  • Reply 28 of 61
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,705member
    Apple didn't miss. The analysts missed.
  • Reply 29 of 61
    patpatpatpatpatpat Posts: 628member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

    I bought 300 shares last night at $122 and sold this morning for a quick $400 profit.

     

    I'm still holding 1000 shares.

     

    I have no doubt this will see $150 sometime this year.

     

     

     

    All these analysist are a-holes.

     

    Apple guided for revenue to be $46-48 billion for Q3.  They blew that away with $49.4 billion.  Apple blew away there own expectations. Wall Streets expectations were unrealistic, yet they penalize Apple for not meeting some pipe dream $51 billion mark.


    So you blew $400 in gain for $9000 when it reaches your predicted $150? Smart!

  • Reply 30 of 61
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

     

    You are correct about the numbers, i.e., the $47B expectation v. $46-$48B Apple guided in Q2.

     

    However, it's silly to suggest that there was 'manipulation.' These revised assessments were not only totally public (here's, for example, an excellent link: http://fortune.com/2015/07/22/here-are-the-best-and-worst-apple-analysts-for-q3-2015/), but these upward revisions were made by many different analysts. (Also, it's a stretch to attribute it all to that Kuo-whatever guy).

     

    I really think we need to stop with these overwrought conspiracy theories. It's nothing more than analyst herding, given their not wanting to be wrong when everyone else is right. The cost of being wrong when everyone else is wrong is substantially less than the cost of being wrong when everyone else is right. That's what leads to herding. Not much more than that.




    That sounds like a reasonable idea, but historically, analysts have done the same thing with Apple, manipulating the stock price whether Apple beat or "missed" the analyst's own forecast, yet you do not see the same behavior with other tech companies.  I get that it's an easy way to make money, given Apple is so prominent and slight shifts in valuation and stock price can be significant swings in real dollars for the analysts and their customers.  But that does not make it right.  The thing that those of us who see this practice as being "unfair" have to remember, is that stocks are traded and prices are driven by things other than logic - and the Apple hate that many have, in part due to the way Apple has treated Wall Street, is something that will keep happening, whether we think it's fair or not.

  • Reply 31 of 61
    satchmosatchmo Posts: 2,699member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by patpatpat View Post

     

    So you blew $400 in gain for $9000 when it reaches your predicted $150? Smart!


     

     

    Nothing is a sure bet, but I was also thinking why settle for a measely $400 profit if one is so sure.

  • Reply 32 of 61
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,510member
    rogifan wrote: »
    The only thing Tim Cook getting involved in gay rights stuff does is get Apple on the front page of the drudge report.

    How can you even look at that poisonous shit from Drudge, let alone have the bad taste to repost it here? The guy has an ugly mind, as does anybody who takes him seriously enough to use him as a tool to make a cheap point for intolerance.
  • Reply 33 of 61
    muadibemuadibe Posts: 134member

    Daniel Dilger is on Twitter. @DanielEran

  • Reply 34 of 61
    aaarrrggghaaarrrgggh Posts: 1,580member
    sog35 wrote: »
    What strike and expiration did you buy?
    Jan 17, $80. About a $4 premium.
  • Reply 35 of 61
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,510member
    muadibe wrote: »
    As many here have stated, you have analysts arbitrarily increasing expectations of Apple with the apparent intention of knocking the stock price.  I agree there should be some detailed grilling of these analysts and their numbers.  They should have to explain why they adjusted expectations with no obvious reason.

    I just wonder how much of this is Wall Street penalizing Apple simply because of Tim Cook's lifestyle.   I know this might seem out there, but in the absence of anything that makes sense, you have to wonder.  

    Incidentally, I'm not the only person who has written about this possibility.  Again, lacking any seemingly rational reason, you have to wonder what's going on.

    ". . . Tim Cook's lifestyle." Time for you to take a look at your assumptions here. Do you still think your preference for one sex over another is a matter of "lifestyle"? Do you follow a heterosexual "lifestyle"?

    The absurd Wall Street angle you try to raise stems from your fearful misunderstanding of gayness as a style of life. You are born to be the way you are. Enjoy it, and let others do so as well.
  • Reply 36 of 61
    jmgregory1 wrote: »

    That sounds like a reasonable idea, but historically, analysts have done the same thing with Apple, manipulating the stock price whether Apple beat or "missed" the analyst's own forecast, yet you do not see the same behavior with other tech companies.

    Really? What other tech companies do you follow, in order to be able say this?

    Also, please provide the data on their past two quarters, a la sog35, and tell me whether analysts revised or not, what the company's revenue and earnings were, and how the market reacted?
  • Reply 37 of 61
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

    I bought 300 shares last night at $122 and sold this morning for a quick $400 profit.

     

    I'm still holding 1000 shares.

     

    I have no doubt this will see $150 sometime this year.

     

     

     

    All these analysist are a-holes.

     

    Apple guided for revenue to be $46-48 billion for Q3.  They blew that away with $49.4 billion.  Apple blew away there own expectations. Wall Streets expectations were unrealistic, yet they penalize Apple for not meeting some pipe dream $51 billion mark.


    You must have doubt if you sold.

  • Reply 38 of 61
    muadibemuadibe Posts: 134member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    Yep. Traders care about money and making more money for themselves. That's it.



    What I do know is that people with money care about more than just money.  Many use that money to further their own beliefs and suppress others with whom they disagree.  Just take a look at what some billionaires do with some of their money.  So while I'm not saying this is definitely happening, I don't see it out of the realm of possibility.  Apple is, and will continue to make boatloads of money for many years to come.  

  • Reply 39 of 61
    muadibemuadibe Posts: 134member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post





    ". . . Tim Cook's lifestyle." Time for you to take a look at your assumptions here. Do you still think your preference for one sex over another is a matter of "lifestyle"? Do you follow a heterosexual "lifestyle"?



    The absurd Wall Street angle you try to raise stems from your fearful misunderstanding of gayness as a style of life. You are born to be the way you are. Enjoy it, and let others do so as well.



    I agree that was perhaps not the best way of putting it.  I should simply have said because of him being gay or a homosexual. 

    As a gay man myself, no, I do not follow a heterosexual lifestyle.  Does that help?

  • Reply 40 of 61
    aaarrrggghaaarrrgggh Posts: 1,580member
    sog35 wrote: »
    Even at 1000 shares I am very over weight Apple.

    And therein lies the problem for upward momentum of AAPL: Everybody is overweighted already. I have about 75% of my holdings in AAPL, and in aggregate it is leveraged 2:1 (a 10% movement in the stock price translates to a 20% movement in my holdings). My next largest holding is only about 5%, and most are closer to 1-2%.

    Institutional ownership of GOOGL is 82%; AAPL is 62%. Without institutions picking up more AAPL, or Apple buying back significantly more shares, it is going to be hard for the stock to move up to where it should be, at least with a P/E in the 17-19 range.
Sign In or Register to comment.