I must say that I really don't understand how financial markets tick - AAPL profit goes up in an apparently recessed/depressed economy, so their share price goes down. What would make the market happy - a total economic depression/collapse? What am I missing here?
Actually, the share price did not go down (it may or may not tomorrow). But if it does, the reason is that Apple is the only bright spot in a dismal economic picture, and people are disappointed that it is not as bright as it could be.
Phone crushed, profit margins going down in short term, Surface sucks, all is well (there are transcripts all over the place, if you want to see more "color").
You are not wrong, but not 100% right. If GOOG did a 10:1 split, the market cap would probably go up by 10% (since more retail people would by the stock). Same for Apple. The interesting question is why they don't (I believe the reason is pride).
I'm not talking about the comparison to competitors tablet products. I'm questioning why, at $329 are the margins significantly lower? I think many assumed the higher price than expected was to keep the high margins. According to Oppenheimer that isn't the case.
I actually don't see why the Mini is cheaper to make than the iPad 2 at all, and the iPad 2 is a mature product (= money machine). Just wait a quarter, and the Mini margins will be back at the same level.
Nonsense. October is typically a down market month and this one is no exception. Added to this is the fact that we're about to see the president re-elected, which will harm markets further.
That's silly. The markets were doing pretty well until after the Denver debate, when you-know-who surged in the polls. Dow and S+P down 3.5% since, NASDAQ down 5%. Shouldn't they be celebrating?
That's silly. The markets were doing pretty well until after the Denver debate, when you-know-who surged in the polls. Dow and S+P down 3.5% since, NASDAQ down 5%. Shouldn't they be celebrating?
The odds are still on you-know-who-else to repeat (check out intrade.com). But I agree that this is probably not the primary reason for the market swoon. The real reason is that we are in an obvious world-wide recession, and the only thing holding up equity prices is the central bank money printing, which is fraught with consequences. So, not much reason for optimism in the ranks. Apple is the only bright spot, and the main reason why their shares have not been doing well is that it is hard for people to believe that they can defy gravity forever (notice that GOOG and AMZN and all of the PC makers are in the tank. IBM's results, though not terrible, are not giving cause for jumping up and down. YHOO is doing ok, but at this point it is a couple of orders of magnitude smaller, so the macro situation is relatively less significant for them.
Agree that the analysts are brain-dead on this one. It's like they had written their stories beforehand. Revenue actually beat average expectations a bit, and profit was minimally below. Most are calling the forward guidance a "warning", although last year, Apple's guidance for the Christmas quarter was $9.30 in profit on $37B revenue. They blew that out. This year they're guiding to $11.75 (26% above last year's guidance) on $52B (40% over last year's).
That's a "warning?" Seriously?
A few reporters actually noticed that if Apple can pull off what it's projecting next quarter, it will be the largest quarterly revenue ever reported for a tech company.
A few reporters actually noticed that if Apple can pull off what it's projecting next quarter, it will be the largest quarterly revenue ever reported for a tech company.
Actually, I guess they'd be breaking their own record.
Agree that the analysts are brain-dead on this one. It's like they had written their stories beforehand. Revenue actually beat average expectations a bit, and profit was minimally below. Most are calling the forward guidance a "warning", although last year, Apple's guidance for the Christmas quarter was $9.30 in profit on $37B revenue. They blew that out. This year they're guiding to $11.75 (26% above last year's guidance) on $52B (40% over last year's).
That's a "warning?" Seriously?
A few reporters actually noticed that if Apple can pull off what it's projecting next quarter, it will be the largest quarterly revenue ever reported for a tech company.
And BTW, after hours, AAPL finished up, not down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdq2
Actually, I guess they'd be breaking their own record.
Yet, analysts are calling for numbers greater than Apple's own recording breaking projections. Their modus operandi is clear - look at a company's history to see how conservative it is and then multiply its projections by an appropriate factor to create their own estimates. Then pocket a few 100ks.
AAPL will be ok, but I don't expect AAPL to outperform the market anytime soon. With iPad 4th gen, Apple has to write down A LOT of iPad 3rd gen (they're selling them for $379 refurb right now), so it's definitely going to hurt AAPL's margin on iPad, plus with iPad mini, a lot of people will get the mini instead for their kids (iPad too heavy for children, plus mini is cheaper), which will hurt the margin further.
Nonsense. October is typically a down market month and this one is no exception. Added to this is the fact that we're about to see the president re-elected, which will harm markets further.
Really?? Because a few days before Obama took office, the Dow was at 8776 and today, even with big declines this week, it's at 13,103. So I think Wall Street cries "wolf" when they talk about Obama. They just hate him because they think he's going to tax their riches slightly more - back to Clinton levels.
Really?? Because a few days before Obama took office, the Dow was at 8776 and today, even with big declines this week, it's at 13,103. So I think Wall Street cries "wolf" when they talk about Obama. They just hate him because they think he's going to tax their riches slightly more - back to Clinton levels.
Contrary to popular belief, the [stock market] has done better more times with Democrats than it has with Republicans.
You are not wrong, but not 100% right. If GOOG did a 10:1 split, the market cap would probably go up by 10% (since more retail people would by the stock). Same for Apple. The interesting question is why they don't (I believe the reason is pride).
It would barely make a difference. The number of shares sold to people who can't afford them would hardly register on the radar if they did a stock split. Retail investors only make up about 10% of AAPL ownership (last I looked at the numbers), and many of these retail investors are owning more than 1 share. So in reality I think it's fair to say Apple would barely go up by a fraction of a percent. This is the reason why they haven't, nothing to do with pride.
Peter Oppenheimer asked about the pricing of iPad mini and says the mini margins are significantly lower than the rest of their product line. Why is that? Wasn't the thought that they priced it at $329 to keep their higher margins?
Translation: "Didn't I and another blowhard agree here that Apple is trying to rip us off?
Apple missed the second time analyst expectations. I warned a few months ago that Apple is entering the troubling times. While analysts are busy updating their spreadsheets, they miss the big picture, they keep chasing the trend, they keep simply extrapolating the iPhone, iPad, and Mac sales numbers but fail to grasp the two principles that have been determining the phenomenal rise of Apple and will shape its eventual fall.
The two principles allowed me in 2005 predict the Apple led revolution and Apple stock multiplying to astronomical at that time price of $300 (as many Apple Finance Board members might recall). This was at the time when the most bullish Apple analyst, Gene Munster, was predicting just $60 price for AAPL.
Now analysts tout $1000 or even $1400 price for AAPL but the two principles say that AAPL is heading back to $300. We, of course, will see higher values along the way... but trouble and forced lower margins are ahead for AAPL.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins
What are you talking about? GOOG has less than half of the number of shares that apple has.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
AND GOOG share price has pretty much flatlined since two years after the IPO.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
They mentioned a buyback on the conference call.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Anything of interest? I missed the call.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexN
I must say that I really don't understand how financial markets tick - AAPL profit goes up in an apparently recessed/depressed economy, so their share price goes down. What would make the market happy - a total economic depression/collapse? What am I missing here?
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Actually, the share price did not go down (it may or may not tomorrow). But if it does, the reason is that Apple is the only bright spot in a dismal economic picture, and people are disappointed that it is not as bright as it could be.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Anything of interest? I missed the call.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Phone crushed, profit margins going down in short term, Surface sucks, all is well (there are transcripts all over the place, if you want to see more "color").
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity
You can't compare share prices like that. There's no relevance whatsoever.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
You are not wrong, but not 100% right. If GOOG did a 10:1 split, the market cap would probably go up by 10% (since more retail people would by the stock). Same for Apple. The interesting question is why they don't (I believe the reason is pride).
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
I'm not talking about the comparison to competitors tablet products. I'm questioning why, at $329 are the margins significantly lower? I think many assumed the higher price than expected was to keep the high margins. According to Oppenheimer that isn't the case.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
I actually don't see why the Mini is cheaper to make than the iPad 2 at all, and the iPad 2 is a mature product (= money machine). Just wait a quarter, and the Mini margins will be back at the same level.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Nonsense. October is typically a down market month and this one is no exception. Added to this is the fact that we're about to see the president re-elected, which will harm markets further.
That's silly. The markets were doing pretty well until after the Denver debate, when you-know-who surged in the polls. Dow and S+P down 3.5% since, NASDAQ down 5%. Shouldn't they be celebrating?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdq2
That's silly. The markets were doing pretty well until after the Denver debate, when you-know-who surged in the polls. Dow and S+P down 3.5% since, NASDAQ down 5%. Shouldn't they be celebrating?
The odds are still on you-know-who-else to repeat (check out intrade.com). But I agree that this is probably not the primary reason for the market swoon. The real reason is that we are in an obvious world-wide recession, and the only thing holding up equity prices is the central bank money printing, which is fraught with consequences. So, not much reason for optimism in the ranks. Apple is the only bright spot, and the main reason why their shares have not been doing well is that it is hard for people to believe that they can defy gravity forever (notice that GOOG and AMZN and all of the PC makers are in the tank. IBM's results, though not terrible, are not giving cause for jumping up and down. YHOO is doing ok, but at this point it is a couple of orders of magnitude smaller, so the macro situation is relatively less significant for them.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }To summarize: We're doomed! doomed!
Agree that the analysts are brain-dead on this one. It's like they had written their stories beforehand. Revenue actually beat average expectations a bit, and profit was minimally below. Most are calling the forward guidance a "warning", although last year, Apple's guidance for the Christmas quarter was $9.30 in profit on $37B revenue. They blew that out. This year they're guiding to $11.75 (26% above last year's guidance) on $52B (40% over last year's).
That's a "warning?" Seriously?
A few reporters actually noticed that if Apple can pull off what it's projecting next quarter, it will be the largest quarterly revenue ever reported for a tech company.
And BTW, after hours, AAPL finished up, not down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdq2
A few reporters actually noticed that if Apple can pull off what it's projecting next quarter, it will be the largest quarterly revenue ever reported for a tech company.
Actually, I guess they'd be breaking their own record.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdq2
Agree that the analysts are brain-dead on this one. It's like they had written their stories beforehand. Revenue actually beat average expectations a bit, and profit was minimally below. Most are calling the forward guidance a "warning", although last year, Apple's guidance for the Christmas quarter was $9.30 in profit on $37B revenue. They blew that out. This year they're guiding to $11.75 (26% above last year's guidance) on $52B (40% over last year's).
That's a "warning?" Seriously?
A few reporters actually noticed that if Apple can pull off what it's projecting next quarter, it will be the largest quarterly revenue ever reported for a tech company.
And BTW, after hours, AAPL finished up, not down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdq2
Actually, I guess they'd be breaking their own record.
Yet, analysts are calling for numbers greater than Apple's own recording breaking projections. Their modus operandi is clear - look at a company's history to see how conservative it is and then multiply its projections by an appropriate factor to create their own estimates. Then pocket a few 100ks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdq2
And BTW, after hours, AAPL finished up, not down.
AAPL will be ok, but I don't expect AAPL to outperform the market anytime soon. With iPad 4th gen, Apple has to write down A LOT of iPad 3rd gen (they're selling them for $379 refurb right now), so it's definitely going to hurt AAPL's margin on iPad, plus with iPad mini, a lot of people will get the mini instead for their kids (iPad too heavy for children, plus mini is cheaper), which will hurt the margin further.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Nonsense. October is typically a down market month and this one is no exception. Added to this is the fact that we're about to see the president re-elected, which will harm markets further.
Really?? Because a few days before Obama took office, the Dow was at 8776 and today, even with big declines this week, it's at 13,103. So I think Wall Street cries "wolf" when they talk about Obama. They just hate him because they think he's going to tax their riches slightly more - back to Clinton levels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb
Really?? Because a few days before Obama took office, the Dow was at 8776 and today, even with big declines this week, it's at 13,103. So I think Wall Street cries "wolf" when they talk about Obama. They just hate him because they think he's going to tax their riches slightly more - back to Clinton levels.
Contrary to popular belief, the [stock market] has done better more times with Democrats than it has with Republicans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
You are not wrong, but not 100% right. If GOOG did a 10:1 split, the market cap would probably go up by 10% (since more retail people would by the stock). Same for Apple. The interesting question is why they don't (I believe the reason is pride).
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
It would barely make a difference. The number of shares sold to people who can't afford them would hardly register on the radar if they did a stock split. Retail investors only make up about 10% of AAPL ownership (last I looked at the numbers), and many of these retail investors are owning more than 1 share. So in reality I think it's fair to say Apple would barely go up by a fraction of a percent. This is the reason why they haven't, nothing to do with pride.
Translation: "Didn't I and another blowhard agree here that Apple is trying to rip us off?
The two principles allowed me in 2005 predict the Apple led revolution and Apple stock multiplying to astronomical at that time price of $300 (as many Apple Finance Board members might recall). This was at the time when the most bullish Apple analyst, Gene Munster, was predicting just $60 price for AAPL.
Now analysts tout $1000 or even $1400 price for AAPL but the two principles say that AAPL is heading back to $300. We, of course, will see higher values along the way... but trouble and forced lower margins are ahead for AAPL.
Agree, the numbers were better than expected. How do these people keep their jobs??
and he gets to keep his job