Wells Fargo cuts Apple price target as stock hovers just above $100

Posted:
in AAPL Investors edited January 2016
The price of of Apple stock has been driven lower by concerns over demand for the iPhone 6s lineup, dropping near $100 per share in early trading on Wednesday as investment firm Wells Fargo Securities cut its own outlook, predicting a short-term "road bump" before a return to growth.




Analyst Maynard Um reduced his "valuation range" for shares of AAPL to between $120 and $130 on Wednesday, down slightly from his previous range of $125 to $135. Um said he was erring "on the side of conservatism" given recent concern over iPhone 6s sales in the current March quarter.

He said those issues are not surprising to him, as iPhone sales growth tends to be softer during an "S" product cycle. But history has also shown that Apple can also find unit strength from lower end models, Um said, noting that the iPhone 4s performed well during the iPhone 5s product cycle.

And while Um said there is "potential" for iPhone sales to fall year over year in the March quarter, he doesn't believe Apple's hot selling handset has "peaked."

Specifically, he expects the December 2016 quarter, with an anticipated "iPhone 7" product upgrade, to set a new quarterly record for the company.

Seeing continued growth in the future, Wells Fargo Securities has maintained an "outperform" rating for shares of AAPL. But the report was issued Monday before markets opened, when shares of the company were down more than 2 percent, hovering just above $100.

Shares of AAPL recovered slightly Monday morning, returning to a price over $102, up from a daily low of $100.22.




The company was dinged by a pair of reports issued on Tuesday, claiming that Apple was planning to cut iPhone 6s orders by 30 percent from its originally anticipated numbers. It was suggested that demand for the flagship iPhone 6s series has been lower than Apple expected.

However, other reports also support Um's thesis that Apple's more affordable iPhone models could be picking up slack. Creative Strategies analyst Ben Bajarin said on Twitter that his own data and checks suggest older models have proven popular in recent months.

Investors should have a clearer picture on Jan. 26, when Apple will reveal the results of its just-concluded holiday quarter, and also provide guidance for the current March quarter.
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 61
    That's bull..it: nothing indicates, that Apples growth has stopped. Why is he talking about a "return" to growth? We are talking 28% in 2015.
    cornchip
  • Reply 2 of 61
    satchmosatchmo Posts: 2,699member
    The iPhone 6 brought a larger form factor. The iPhone 6s mid cycle update is understandably less flashy.

    So what can an iPhone 7 bring to the table that isn't simply thinner?
    Wireless earbuds? Removal of home button?, better battery life? OLED? 
    All nice, but is it enough to sway someone with an iPhone 6 to upgrade?
  • Reply 3 of 61
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,296member
    “The price of of Apple stock has been driven lower by concerns over demand for the iPhone 6s lineup...” “Concerns” mind you, not facts, not proof, not anything, just “concerns.”
    rogifan_oldmagman1979latifbpcornchip
  • Reply 4 of 61


    Right now Apple is viewed 100% from unit sold perspective. That's stupid. That's a game you will eventually always lose. The focus should be on ecosystem, how much people are locked into the ecosystem, and how much each user pays to say on the ecosystem. Everything should focus on that. Tim Cook should immediately:

    2. Buy Netflix or other smaller streaming company or build your own. Movies/TV shows is a huge pillar for an ecosystem.
    3. Close the live TV deal. Just do it. Even if it means not getting the best deal. Who cares about making profit on the TV deal. Again its all about strengthing the ecosystem.
    5. Invest heavy in gaming for AppleTV.
    6. Stop pinching pennies with iPhone. Stop with the 16GB base model. Again the focus needs to be on locking people into the ecosystem and increasing install base. Who cares if you sacrifice a few dollars of profit. Think LONG TERM.

    You motivated me enough to login & say that, despite the fact that people will nitpick your post: you make A LOT of great points. Obsession with unit sales per quarter isn't needed... Streaming should have happened already considering they're ALREADY in the content delivery business. 16GB iDevices is just frustrating non-techy new customers.
    magman1979asdasdanton zuykovlatifbpcornchippalomine
  • Reply 5 of 61
    kamiltonkamilton Posts: 262member
    Today, US Patent Office granted Apple, Inc. patents for miniature Cold Fusion and Antigravity devices.  During an interview on CNBC, Apple Senior VP of Marketing, Phil Schiller commented, "Well, I can't say whether or not we're building a hydrogen powered magic carpet, but we certainly could..."  AAPL was down $2.50 in late day trading due to rumors of iPhone supply chain softening.     
    jasenj1wvdirkj1334nolamacguycornchippalomine
  • Reply 6 of 61
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,317member
    Soli said:
    @sog (@kraytinprime) I thought you said you were going to ban yourself from the forums. Are you really not going to keep your word by creating a dummy account, all so you can continue to repeat the same anti-Cook diatribe over and over again?
    I don't think we need a discussion board with no discussion, though. I don't agree with sog most of the time but he's an interesting poster. 
    edited January 2016 palomine
  • Reply 7 of 61
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,317member

    lkrupp said:
    “The price of of Apple stock has been driven lower by concerns over demand for the iPhone 6s lineup...” “Concerns” mind you, not facts, not proof, not anything, just “concerns.”
    Yet Tim Cook does nothing to calm down those concerns.

    Instead he sits on his ass all day and lets the company lose almost $200,000,000,000 in value.

    All he had to do was reiterate the Dec quarter guidance weeks ago and we would still be at $120-$130.

    It sucks that Tim Cook just allowed THREE YEARS of stock gains to be wiped on in a couple of weeks based on flatout lies and false rumors.
    This is 100% on Tim Cook. If Tim Cook isn't going to defend the stock and the company name, who is? Why are we paying Tim Cook $100,000,000 a year? Rather than addressing these vile rumors Tim Cook waste his time going on 60 minutes to discuss tax evasion. Is he really this clueless?
    I doubt it is certain that the real figures would be $120 or anything like that, however going on 60 minutes didn't help much. 
  • Reply 8 of 61
    SoliSoli Posts: 9,256member
    asdasd said:
    Soli said:
    @sog (@kraytinprime) I thought you said you were going to ban yourself from the forums. Are you really not going to keep your word by creating a dummy account, all so you can continue to repeat the same anti-Cook diatribe over and over again?
    I don't think we need a discussion board with no discussion, though. I don't agree with sog most of the time but he's an interesting poster. 
    1) I'm telling him not to post (although the broken record shit is much)? but I am pointing out his rouse and inability to keep his word.

    2) People think Donald Trump is interesting, too.
    singularitynolamacguyfastasleep
  • Reply 9 of 61
    I like checking out the comments section of these stories to see what Sog has to say. He's such a character :)
    asdasdsflagel
  • Reply 10 of 61
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,395member
    asdasd said:
    Soli said:
    @sog (@kraytinprime) I thought you said you were going to ban yourself from the forums. Are you really not going to keep your word by creating a dummy account, all so you can continue to repeat the same anti-Cook diatribe over and over again?
    I don't think we need a discussion board with no discussion, though. I don't agree with sog most of the time but he's an interesting poster. 
    It's no longer interesting. It's repetitive and annoying.
    singularitySolimuppetrytdknoxmwhitemontrosemacsnolamacguyjonl
  • Reply 11 of 61
    please stop. If no one can see this speculation and sell off is merely the work of hedge fund managers, i have no idea what you will see. Even Kramer has said in the past that when he ran his hedge, whenever he needed a quick uptick in profits, get someone to float bad news about Apple. That would move the meter and he and other folks hedging Apple lower would make a ton. Yet it plays out every earning season, people sell on fear, hedgers get rich, and when the price is low enough they buy again. Wash rinse repeat. And every earnings period, people act like they have never seen the same behavior before. Sad.
    mwhitenolamacguypalomine
  • Reply 12 of 61
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,935member
    Sog is having a nervous breakdown.
    He isn't the investor that he has portrayed for years.
    He is a gambler, and he got caught up in the Casino.
    Unfortunately, he might not be able to wait for the market to shift back to quality, and AAPL.

    Personally, and I own no AAPL, I would want Tim to continue on the path of broadening Apple's reach to more markets, and filling the pipeline with more of the niche hardware (merely 10's of millions of units) and continue bolstering the ecosystem.
    edited January 2016 SoliSpamSandwichjackansinolamacguycornchip
  • Reply 13 of 61
    I don't know if you are valuation blind or what. I've been following this stock very closely for the last 11 years. It is clear as day, that AAPL profit growth can't support its current stock market. Please, do not refer to Apple's low P/E ratio or other backward statistics that essentially boils down to "look, Apple was great in the past, so it must be great in the future"

    At the very heart of the ongoing demise of Apple is that its products are not that impressive relative to competition as they had been before. As Jobs said, Cook is not a product guy. Job's foresight is evident in the several misguided steps that Cook took in product development and personnel.
    For example, take a look at Cook's promotion of Jony Ivy. The guy is a very good hardware designer but he is not a software guy. Ivy tries to perfect minute OS details like curvature or spacing of letters (San Francisco font anyone?), but fails to address the elephant in the room: Apple sucks, and sucks mightily, in the cloud! Without a strong cloud and everything that comes with it (effortless syncing, AI assistance, ability to move smoothly from one device to another), today's smartphone or computer company can't succeed. Apple Watch is another manifestation of Ivy's misguided drive for perfection. I could go on but am afraid Apple die hards would call me a troll (you probably would call me a troll anyway because you are so invested in Apple that it hurts to hear the painful truth).

    In short, under Cook's wings Apple products are not so much above and beyond the competition to justify Apple being the most valuable company in the world. The profit growth will decline, low P/E be damned, and with the lower profit growth so will go AAPL price. Mark my words, the day is coming when Apple will be dethroned from its "the most valuable" title, as said as it might be.
  • Reply 14 of 61
    josujosu Posts: 217member
    please stop. If no one can see this speculation and sell off is merely the work of hedge fund managers, i have no idea what you will see. Even Kramer has said in the past that when he ran his hedge, whenever he needed a quick uptick in profits, get someone to float bad news about Apple. That would move the meter and he and other folks hedging Apple lower would make a ton. Yet it plays out every earning season, people sell on fear, hedgers get rich, and when the price is low enough they buy again. Wash rinse repeat. And every earnings period, people act like they have never seen the same behavior before. Sad.
    Totally agreed, the idiots that sell its stock pushing the panic button are the ones to blame, not Cook or the Wall Street greedy movers. I have Apple since 2000 I have passed through many of this moments, in 2001 even the management team and the board had lost faith in the stock, so they backdated the stock options. And here I am from 3,57 to 100. So what, another deep, unless I need the money I will never sell until its fairly valued or Wall Street get mad buying the stock again, something that sooner or lated will happen, that's the moment to sell. And never look back again.
    cornchippalomine
  • Reply 15 of 61
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    SOG is going on as if his stake is more like that of Carl Icahn - someone who probably is really not pleased with the current turn of events.

    Could  Carl makes a move on the Apple board and Tim Cook?  Is his holding big enough to have an impact?  Is he so quiet because he's up to something?  Pressuring Cook to buy back Apple stock while he hangs on to his own chunk would surely serve to increase the voting influence of his holding.  Wait for a rough patch, get some fund managers on-side and go for a spill?

    Apple's cash hoard must be such a tempting target.

    I'm probably severely overestimating the relative importance of his stake and spouting a load of nonsense. :-)
  • Reply 16 of 61
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,762member
    lkrupp said:
    “The price of of Apple stock has been driven lower by concerns over demand for the iPhone 6s lineup...” “Concerns” mind you, not facts, not proof, not anything, just “concerns.”
    Yet Tim Cook does nothing to calm down those concerns.

    Instead he sits on his ass all day and lets the company lose almost $200,000,000,000 in value.

    All he had to do was reiterate the Dec quarter guidance weeks ago and we would still be at $120-$130.

    It sucks that Tim Cook just allowed THREE YEARS of stock gains to be wiped on in a couple of weeks based on flatout lies and false rumors.
    This is 100% on Tim Cook. If Tim Cook isn't going to defend the stock and the company name, who is? Why are we paying Tim Cook $100,000,000 a year? Rather than addressing these vile rumors Tim Cook waste his time going on 60 minutes to discuss tax evasion. Is he really this clueless?
    We're paying Cook a hundred mill a year to keep Apple earning great profits and then go on to make new great products. We're not paying him to spend his time defending Apple to Wall Street, which would just make him look weak.  There's also the possibility that he's waiting for the stock price to fall further so that he can pick up another few billion's worth of shares in his buyback programme. To my mind, that's a great use of the spare cash: get shares away from the whining rank amateurs like yourself. 

    Cook gave his guidance at an investor meeting last year: if you don't like the way he runs the company then sell your shares. 

    Oh, and man up and ban yourself like you said you would.
    muppetryrogifan_oldSpamSandwichsingularitysflagelnolamacguyfastasleeppalomine
  • Reply 17 of 61
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,317member
    cnocbui said:
    SOG is going on as if his stake is more like that of Carl Icahn - someone who probably is really not pleased with the current turn of events.

    Could  Carl makes a move on the Apple board and Tim Cook?  Is his holding big enough to have an impact?  Is he so quiet because he's up to something?  Pressuring Cook to buy back Apple stock while he hangs on to his own chunk would surely serve to increase the voting influence of his holding.  Wait for a rough patch, get some fund managers on-side and go for a spill?

    Apple's cash hoard must be such a tempting target.

    I'm probably severely overestimating the relative importance of his stake and spouting a load of nonsense. :-)
    He's about 1% I believe. 
  • Reply 18 of 61
    enature said:
    I don't know if you are valuation blind or what. I've been following this stock very closely for the last 11 years. It is clear as day, that AAPL profit growth can't support its current stock market. Please, do not refer to Apple's low P/E ratio or other backward statistics that essentially boils down to "look, Apple was great in the past, so it must be great in the future"

    At the very heart of the ongoing demise of Apple is that its products are not that impressive relative to competition as they had been before. As Jobs said, Cook is not a product guy. Job's foresight is evident in the several misguided steps that Cook took in product development and personnel.
    For example, take a look at Cook's promotion of Jony Ivy. The guy is a very good hardware designer but he is not a software guy. Ivy tries to perfect minute OS details like curvature or spacing of letters (San Francisco font anyone?), but fails to address the elephant in the room: Apple sucks, and sucks mightily, in the cloud! Without a strong cloud and everything that comes with it (effortless syncing, AI assistance, ability to move smoothly from one device to another), today's smartphone or computer company can't succeed. Apple Watch is another manifestation of Ivy's misguided drive for perfection. I could go on but am afraid Apple die hards would call me a troll (you probably would call me a troll anyway because you are so invested in Apple that it hurts to hear the painful truth).

    In short, under Cook's wings Apple products are not so much above and beyond the competition to justify Apple being the most valuable company in the world. The profit growth will decline, low P/E be damned, and with the lower profit growth so will go AAPL price. Mark my words, the day is coming when Apple will be dethroned from its "the most valuable" title, as said as it might be.
    I think you're quite confused as Jony Ive has nothing to do with Apple's cloud services nor does he run Apple's software engineering teams. Eddy Cue is responsible for running iCloud and Craig Federighi software engineering. But again, Apple stock is down for one reason: rumors of iPhone production cuts. We've already gone through this before while Tim Cook was CEO; in 2013 the sky was falling, Apple was Doomed™ and Apple investors were scared shitless over Samsung, the Next Big Thing™. I swear this is just a cycle Apple goes through and anytime there is even the slightest whiff of possible bad iPhone news the nervous nellies run away from the stock in a panic.
  • Reply 19 of 61
    Google only makes $15 billion in profits a year and Apple makes $53 billion.  Even if Apple's profits tanked 75% they would still make more profit than Google.
    If you understood that the stock price is determined not so much by actual profits, but by the rate of change of profits, perhaps, you'd understand why AAPL is a sell. If Apple profits tanked 75%, an unlikely scenario as it is, the stock would tank mightily.
    jackansi
  • Reply 20 of 61
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,540member
    asdasd said:
    Soli said:
    @sog (@kraytinprime) I thought you said you were going to ban yourself from the forums. Are you really not going to keep your word by creating a dummy account, all so you can continue to repeat the same anti-Cook diatribe over and over again?
    I don't think we need a discussion board with no discussion, though. I don't agree with sog most of the time but he's an interesting poster. 
    But he doesn't have anything interesting to say.  He simply cuts & pastes the same shit into multiple posts on every thread.  Even when he was pro Apple it was the same - nothing new, nothing thoughtful, just completely over the top, repetitive shit.
    jackansisingularitynolamacguyjonl
Sign In or Register to comment.