Morgan Stanley advises not to bet against Apple
While researchers for investment bank Morgan Stanley aren't disputing that slowing iPod growth presents a negative scenario for Apple's share price, they're pointing to recent history this week in advising their clients that now would be the wrong time to bet against the company.
In a research report Thursday, the firm's duo of Katy Huberty and Alice Hur noted that growing research and development expense reported by the company in its latest filings with the SEC indicate a fresh product cycle is well in the works.
"Apple R&D (reported + capitalized) grew faster in the last three quarters than at any time in the company?s recent history," Huberty explained. "This line item has proven to be a clear indicator of future product cycles that drive fundamentals and stock performance."
For example, she noted that year-over-year R&D growth from Sept. 2002 to June 2003 rose 8 percent, yielding the iTunes Store and an operating margin the following year of 3 percent. Similarly, from June 2004 to Dec. 2004, R&D was up another 7 percent yearly, ultimately resulting in a broader portfolio of iPods and an operating margin of 12 percent the following year.
Apple, of course, really began to gain momentum during the two years thereafter. As Huberty noted, from Dec. 2005 to Sept. 2006, yearly R&D grew 26 percent, giving way to Intel Macs, video-based iPod nanos, the iPhone, and a post-year operating margin of 18 percent. With R&D again rising by some 32 percent yearly during the period from June 2007 to Dec. 2007, a broader array of Wi-Fi mobile devices and some yet unknown products are likely to build on this trend, she argues.
"Ultimately, future product cycles are key to stock performance and we view late Spring/Summer as the next potential timeframe for announcements," the analyst wrote. "While macro concerns may prove an overhang in the near-term, investors should take advantage of pullbacks to build positions over the next three months - ahead of March quarter results and potential mid-year product announcements."
Among the potential near-term demand catalysts listed by the Morgan Stanley analyst in her note to clients were rising demand for digital convergence products like Apple TV, increased demand for high-end consumer PC functionality, and opportunities to expand internationally.
Risks, on the other hand, could include Apple's inability to maintain its rate of innovation, set-backs on the timing of new product launches, and new competitive offerings from rivals such as Nokia, Dell and Gateway.
Huberty maintained an Overweight rating on shares of the Cupertino-based electronics maker with In-Line industry view and $185 price target. Her Bear case scenario would see the stock fall to $120 on slower uptake of the new products introduced at Macworld, while her Bull case has shares rising to $225 on high demand and revenue growth from the company's mobile products.
In a research report Thursday, the firm's duo of Katy Huberty and Alice Hur noted that growing research and development expense reported by the company in its latest filings with the SEC indicate a fresh product cycle is well in the works.
"Apple R&D (reported + capitalized) grew faster in the last three quarters than at any time in the company?s recent history," Huberty explained. "This line item has proven to be a clear indicator of future product cycles that drive fundamentals and stock performance."
For example, she noted that year-over-year R&D growth from Sept. 2002 to June 2003 rose 8 percent, yielding the iTunes Store and an operating margin the following year of 3 percent. Similarly, from June 2004 to Dec. 2004, R&D was up another 7 percent yearly, ultimately resulting in a broader portfolio of iPods and an operating margin of 12 percent the following year.
Apple, of course, really began to gain momentum during the two years thereafter. As Huberty noted, from Dec. 2005 to Sept. 2006, yearly R&D grew 26 percent, giving way to Intel Macs, video-based iPod nanos, the iPhone, and a post-year operating margin of 18 percent. With R&D again rising by some 32 percent yearly during the period from June 2007 to Dec. 2007, a broader array of Wi-Fi mobile devices and some yet unknown products are likely to build on this trend, she argues.
"Ultimately, future product cycles are key to stock performance and we view late Spring/Summer as the next potential timeframe for announcements," the analyst wrote. "While macro concerns may prove an overhang in the near-term, investors should take advantage of pullbacks to build positions over the next three months - ahead of March quarter results and potential mid-year product announcements."
Among the potential near-term demand catalysts listed by the Morgan Stanley analyst in her note to clients were rising demand for digital convergence products like Apple TV, increased demand for high-end consumer PC functionality, and opportunities to expand internationally.
Risks, on the other hand, could include Apple's inability to maintain its rate of innovation, set-backs on the timing of new product launches, and new competitive offerings from rivals such as Nokia, Dell and Gateway.
Huberty maintained an Overweight rating on shares of the Cupertino-based electronics maker with In-Line industry view and $185 price target. Her Bear case scenario would see the stock fall to $120 on slower uptake of the new products introduced at Macworld, while her Bull case has shares rising to $225 on high demand and revenue growth from the company's mobile products.
Comments
Well, this is the first time I agreed with a Wall Street firm's financial wisdom.
Agreed. I doubt that the company that changed - no, transformed - the conversation repeatedly with a steady sucession of game-changing products (iPod, the iMac, the iPhone, and so forth) is sitting still.
Let's not forget that Apple has often killed off its own creations so as to migrate to the next stage: Anyone remember the iPod Mini? Jaws dropped worldwide (and markets got completely confused and flummoxed) when Jobs walked in and said "Our best-selling iPod ever, the Mini, is being killed off, and here's the Nano."
Most firms milk their cash cows to death, but not Apple. The moment they see a slowdown, they will move on.
Huberty maintained an Overweight rating on shares of the Cupertino-based electronics maker with In-Line industry view and $185 price target. Her Bear case scenario would see the stock fall to $120 on slower uptake of the new products introduced at Macworld, while her Bull case has shares rising to $225 on high demand and revenue growth from the company's mobile products.
I want one of these analyst jobs, so I can guesstimate anything from $120 to $225
(quite a spread!) and make a nice salary doing so! How can she be wrong?
How can she be wrong?
Not only that, what consequences are there for being wrong? Seems a bit like the weather forecast. They put a lot of time and effort into reaching a plausible conclusion but hey if it actually does rain on the other side of the country, it doesn't mean the forecaster gets wet.
"Among the potential near-term demand catalysts listed by the Morgan Stanley analyst in her note to clients were rising demand for digital convergence products like Apple TV, increased demand for high-end consumer PC functionality, and opportunities to expand internationally."
Well, well freakin' well.
Time for Apple to start delivering products people want and also treating international customers with some fair pricing. I really hope that the staggering share price drop is directly due to these factors but as always it's speculative.
I want one of these analyst jobs, so I can guesstimate anything from $120 to $225
(quite a spread!) and make a nice salary doing so! How can she be wrong?
She'd be wrong if it went below 120. For an investor, you could take a chance and buy now, or wait until it drops to around 120 (which may or may not happen). Either way, the point is that she considers the potential downside pretty minimal (10% down) compared to the potential upside (75% gain).
And I get the impression that she thinks it will go to 235 either way...it's just a question of whether there will be a drop first, and what timeframe it will take to get to 235.
Time for Apple to start delivering products people want...
Time to start? Apple obviously has been delivering products people want if they've had growth and increasing market share for how many consecutive quarters. Of course they can always continue to add more products people want, and improve the product line. And it's pretty clear what caused the price drop, one specific number in the earnings report.
Let me translate this article for you. "We bought a shitload of shares with inflated prices, so we need to come up with optimistic 'analysis' so that we don't lose our shirts. Naturally we don't know what's going to happen in the future, but by backing up our prediction with historical data we can fool naive investors into thinking that history will repeat itself, i.e. historical data = fact."
BTW, for $100 I will write my own 'analysis' why you should NOT buy the stock at the current levels.
I want one of these analyst jobs, so I can guesstimate anything from $120 to $225
(quite a spread!) and make a nice salary doing so! How can she be wrong?
You aren't reading the information correctly. Everything is an odds game; she is saying that there is a chance of a 11% further drop, or a 67% upside. In terms of hedging your investments, this says you have a 1:6 chance of losing money, and allows you to chose a way to hedge yourself for either a bull or bear market.
Let's not forget that Apple has often killed off its own creations so as to migrate to the next stage: Anyone remember the iPod Mini? Jaws dropped worldwide (and markets got completely confused and flummoxed) when Jobs walked in and said "Our best-selling iPod ever, the Mini, is being killed off, and here's the Nano."
I think that was a bit overplayed on Apple's part. It was basically a new mini, with a new name.
You aren't reading the information correctly. Everything is an odds game; she is saying that there is a chance of a 11% further drop, or a 67% upside. In terms of hedging your investments, this says you have a 1:6 chance of losing money, and allows you to chose a way to hedge yourself for either a bull or bear market.
That's assuming she can see the future. Unless she recommended selling the stock at $200, I'd take these numbers with a grain of salt.
I think that was a bit overplayed on Apple's part. It was basically a new mini, with a new name.
And a total redesign. And smaller capacities. I don't think there's any question that the safe move would have been a slight tweak or even leaving the model the same while it was still such a huge seller, while a radical redesign was much riskier.
Investment rule #1. Historical data has zero correlation with what is going to happen in the future.
Bull. Historical data has LIMITED correlation, meaning that historical data doesn't guarantee future results. It's a mistake to assume that a historical trend is certain to continue. But it's simply wrong to insist that there's zero correlation, meaning that buying based on history isn't any more effective than buying randomly.
If you have one company that has been profitable for 10 years straight, and another that has lost money every quarter 10 years straight, do you really think it's NOT a safer bet that the first will be profitable next quarter than the second. Sure, either company may break their historical pattern. But that's much less likely than the historical trend continuing.
That's assuming she can see the future. Unless she recommended selling the stock at $200, I'd take these numbers with a grain of salt.
No, that's just assuming she has skill at making this sort of prediction. And you should always take any predictions with a grain of salt, even when they have a stellar track record.
If you have one company that has been profitable for 10 years straight, and another that has lost money every quarter 10 years straight, do you really think it's NOT a safer bet that the first will be profitable next quarter than the second. Sure, either company may break their historical pattern. But that's much less likely than the historical trend continuing.
In that case the history is already reflected in their stock price. It is naturally more likely that the current trend
will continue when it comes to profits, but like I said that is already reflected in the stock price. Keep in mind, good company != good stock. So using your example, there's a 50-50 chance for the good company's stock to go up or down next quarter, as well as there is a 50-50 chance for the worse company's stock to go up/down.
Over long period of time, it's not 50-50 anymore, due to inflation.
Second, when a royal shithead like Mark Hurd just received $30 million dollars worth of shares for head count cutting versus any innovation at HP, you have to commend Apple for its innovation. As hard as I am on Apple, I want Apple to succeed in many ways. If nothing else, to show shitheads like Mark Hurd (who BTW is a hunt and peck keyboard user) what design is all about.
In that case the history is already reflected in their stock price. It is naturally more likely that the current trend
will continue when it comes to profits, but like I said that is already reflected in the stock price. Keep in mind, good company != good stock. So using your example, there's a 50-50 chance for the good company's stock to go up or down next quarter, as well as there is a 50-50 chance for the worse company's stock to go up/down.
Over long period of time, it's not 50-50 anymore, due to inflation.
If a company's stock price goes up consistently for 10 years while another's goes down consistently for ten years, you still think that each has the same 50-50 chance of going up or down over the next year? You really think buying based on historical performance is no better than picking randomly?
I don't buy it.
And a total redesign. And smaller capacities. I don't think there's any question that the safe move would have been a slight tweak or even leaving the model the same while it was still such a huge seller, while a radical redesign was much riskier.
The gen 3 nano was a pretty radical redesign too, in some ways more radical than the first nano was. They didn't consider giving the third gen one a new name.
The first nano was mostly adapting the main iPod's familiar design with some mini elements (height, screen size) into a smaller shape and a couple other touches. The only real risk was the capacity drop, but at least the nano's capacity drop looked more justifiable than the mini vs. the main iPod because of the much more significantly reduced size.
If a company's stock price goes up consistently for 10 years while another's goes down consistently for ten years, you still think that each has the same 50-50 chance of going up or down over the next year? You really think buying based on historical performance is no better than picking randomly?
I don't buy it.
That's exactly what I'm saying. If you pick randomly, your portfolio is going to follow the index, e.g. nasdaq. If you claim your method beats random picking, you have found a method to beat the market. To my knowledge, there is no proven way to beat the market.
And a total redesign. And smaller capacities. I don't think there's any question that the safe move would have been a slight tweak or even leaving the model the same while it was still such a huge seller, while a radical redesign was much riskier.
A redesign is always a risk, but when the redesign makes a category product smaller, faster, more durable, and have battery life it's a pretty safe bet it will work. Apple could have milked it longer and may not have seen any real competition except from SanDisk. Or they could have released the Nano along with the Mini for a slight premium, but that would be confusing. What Apple did was cannibalize a category product with a new and improved product before the competition could.
That is how you stay in the lead. Apple in the 1990s was selling old Macs with hardly a revision to them and were making great profits on them, but it happened at expense of Apple almost dying.
Intel had been losing some marketshare to AMD but now they are releasing new processors that are faster and better and at the same pricepoint than the previous model even though AMD doens't have anything to match. Intel has been delaying releasing a little but they are still being very agressive, and it's worked.