No need to claim to be an analyst to know that growth will eventually stop. Apple can't possibly sell more phones every year. But then I fail to see why or how would sales suddenly drop...
Economists and bankers are the worst. People who believe that having followed a course on 'economic science' makes them specialist on everything. Economy is a pseudo science.
Economics has been called the "dismal science" by Thomas Carlyle.
As they say, a broken clock is still right twice a day! More doom and gloom for Apple, oh now. Now it the time to buy more stock and Apple will shoot up even more. Will they ever learn? So many people just don't get Apple. Doesn't fit the normal business model for them. Maybe they're trying to get stock prices to drop low and buy so that it'll jump back up and they can make millions?
In six billion years, the sun will expand to consume the entire solar system. The last living human will gaze at the encroaching end-of-all-things and say: "I knew it! Apple couldn't last forever!"
The Car Manufacturers are doomed. Their sole income is from selling petrol powered dinosaurs.
With apple you could get the infotainment tools first, and the car later
No seriously, the car manufacturers should really start expanding their product portfolio. Restricting mobility to cars only is a short sighted vision. Electric powered bicycles or motorcycles should be on their radar as well. I can't see them developing an online mobility platform either ...
They do highlight what I think is the strongest bear case. People will hold onto their iPhones for longer and longer, causing sales growth to slow, stop, then plummet.
These guys are right: Apple is a flash in the pan, one trick pony. The iPhone 6 screen can't get any bigger: it must be a dead man walking. iPad has been "beaten" by white box android tablets in the all-important numbers game. iTunes sales are down. App Store breaking even. AppleTV stagnant specs. MacBook Air still not retina. Mac Pro stale. Apple Watch is late and too expensive and requires an iPhone. Apple Pay is "loosing". Apple Maps still sucks. And Apple keeps spending money on magic solar farms and bankrupt sapphire factories, because Timid Timmy is too scared to fire anybody.
"Fisher Says Prices of Stocks Are Low,” said a headline in the New York Times on October 22, 1929, referring to economist Irving Fisher. Two days later, the stock market crashed, and by the end of November the New York Stock Exchange was down 30% from its peak.
Fisher had based his statement on strong earnings reports, few industrial disputes, and evidence of high investment in research and development (R&D).
Sometimes the conventional wisdom will pull the rug out from under your feet...
They quote the 'law of large numbers' but they forget the largest number of all at the moment. Apple has 160 billion of ready cash, this means that given a good idea they have the means to bring it to fruition unlike any other company on earth. It's almost certain that the iPhone will not remain 85% of Apple's cash cow, but when it eventually slides, there will be something else. With the cash, talent, and design and idea expertise that Apple has, anything is possible for the future, but most unlikely is for its value to drop by half.
Limitless resources aren't everything.
Google can do whatever it wants. But it is in the habit of producing one dud after another. Search is their one golden goose. It's very unlikely that they'll have anything as successful.
With Steve Jobs gone, we have yet to see a new Apple hit. I don't think we're likely to, either.
They have enough money to buy back all the existing shares right now but they would not be allowed to do that. But, even if they were allowed to, that is not the same as going private. In order to go private, someone would have to buy them. There are only a handful of people who are wealthy enough to do that and I think Apple is better off being run by Tim Cook than some Saudi sheik. Apple cannot own itself. It is possible that it could be an employee owned company but they still need to come up with $759B. Plus whatever the material assets are.
Thank you! I also try to correct the oft-repeated (wrong) assumption that Apple can take itself private. I think part of the misconception is on the share buy-backs, which some attribute to Apple buying up shares of itself and then Apple the corporation keeps that ownership. That of course is not the case - the shares are retired so that the ownership of the company is amongst fewer shares.
Your problem is you are only thinking of HARDWARE.
Bottom line is all of Jobs stuff are basically the same thing: Computing devices. Mac, iPhone, iPod, iPad. They are all just computing devices in different form factors.
The magic happens with SOFTWARE and SERVICES and ECOSYSTEM. Features like ApplePay, TouchID, ect are the real innovations. So was the AppStore and iTunes Store. Without those the iPod/iPhone/iPad would not be nearly as successful.
Well, I wouldn't be so sure that BF is logically looking at the situation to understand or forecast the bear case, rather than just being 100% negative for the sake of it.
The problem in general is that the superficial analysis done by so many is based on anecdotes of other companies or industries, without understanding what the issues in those areas were. Microsoft was not able to grow meaningfully into mobile & consumer tech in the last 10 years despite having $billions in the bank, therefore Apple's money won't be able to help them? Talk about failing logic 101! Or mentioning Google's inability to develop any meaningful revenue earner beyond search-based advertising because they take a "throw betas at the wall" approach to product development. Or this analyst, who looks at Apple like Nokia, despite fact the two are not that similar at all (one makes mobile phones, the other mobile computers with a deep ecosystem in SW, services, & desktop/laptop/tablet computing).
It is necessary to think about the markets and challenges, rather than throw out anecdotes. Most of the media, some analysts, and certain posters on this forum don't seem to be able to do that.
This values them at less than about double the *cash* they have (I think ... doing the math in my head here). Heck Apple could take themselves private in 5 years, if shares hit $60, even if revenue only stays constant
While I find their targets a little ridiculous, how many times does it need to be stated that nothing works like this? Apple cannot "take themselves private", because they don't own themselves. Basically they would need investors with the cash to buy out existing shares. If they bought them back slowly as some of the more misinformed posters have suggested, this would merely result in outstanding shares that are inflated in value. Those shareholders would still own 100% of Apple, and Apple, the company, would still own 0% of itself. Does that make sense? It would be nearly impossible to get a group of investors with enough cash to take Apple private.
While I find their targets a little ridiculous, how many times does it need to be stated that nothing works like this? Apple cannot "take themselves private", because they don't own themselves. Basically they would need investors with the cash to buy out existing shares. If they bought them back slowly as some of the more misinformed posters have suggested, this would merely result in outstanding shares that are inflated in value. Those shareholders would still own 100% of Apple, and Apple, the company, would still own 0% of itself. Does that make sense? It would be nearly impossible to get a group of investors with enough cash to take Apple private.
You are absolutely correct. I was (inaccurately) using the "go private" idea to express the fact that a $60 valuation would be approaching Apple's own cash on hand in the not too distant future which seems pretty absurd (compared to valuations of e.g. Amazon, in particular!).
Berenberg is a small private bank in Germany that is absolutely irrelevant and even in Germany practically no-one ever heard about even though it is the oldest private bank left in Germany.
It's not even an investment firm... In fact they stated and emphasized that investment banking only happens on behalf of their clients. You know, very conservative banking tailored to the needs of HNWIs with an extreme need for hand-holding.
Covering what one of their analysts say is as relevant as covering your aunt's Facebook post about AAPL.
Idea here: "Let's make some extreme bearish predictions on APPL, so we get some press coverage then ppl. will know our name, and maybe it even goes viral." Yeah, pipe dreams of marketing executive.
End of story.
Cheap marketing ploy and ignored by nearly everyone, except here for click bait.
PS: The last cheap marketing ploy of them was that they send letters to their customers will less than 1M in their account that they will close their account if they don't stock it up. Private banks usually takes customers with a minimum of a 500K deposit when opening an account in most parts of central Europe.
Comments
Can Germans invest in US shares? Does this company have an office in USA? I fail to understand why a German company would forecast US stocks.
Economics has been called the "dismal science" by Thomas Carlyle.
As they say, a broken clock is still right twice a day! More doom and gloom for Apple, oh now. Now it the time to buy more stock and Apple will shoot up even more. Will they ever learn? So many people just don't get Apple. Doesn't fit the normal business model for them. Maybe they're trying to get stock prices to drop low and buy so that it'll jump back up and they can make millions?
In six billion years, the sun will expand to consume the entire solar system. The last living human will gaze at the encroaching end-of-all-things and say: "I knew it! Apple couldn't last forever!"
The Car Manufacturers are doomed. Their sole income is from selling petrol powered dinosaurs.
With apple you could get the infotainment tools first, and the car later
No seriously, the car manufacturers should really start expanding their product portfolio. Restricting mobility to cars only is a short sighted vision. Electric powered bicycles or motorcycles should be on their radar as well. I can't see them developing an online mobility platform either ...
Let's hope not.
They do highlight what I think is the strongest bear case. People will hold onto their iPhones for longer and longer, causing sales growth to slow, stop, then plummet.
Corrected for you.
Quite.
Limitless resources aren't everything.
Google can do whatever it wants. But it is in the habit of producing one dud after another. Search is their one golden goose. It's very unlikely that they'll have anything as successful.
With Steve Jobs gone, we have yet to see a new Apple hit. I don't think we're likely to, either.
Microsoft could have ruled the world, too.
Money isn't everything.
They have enough money to buy back all the existing shares right now but they would not be allowed to do that. But, even if they were allowed to, that is not the same as going private. In order to go private, someone would have to buy them. There are only a handful of people who are wealthy enough to do that and I think Apple is better off being run by Tim Cook than some Saudi sheik. Apple cannot own itself. It is possible that it could be an employee owned company but they still need to come up with $759B. Plus whatever the material assets are.
Thank you! I also try to correct the oft-repeated (wrong) assumption that Apple can take itself private. I think part of the misconception is on the share buy-backs, which some attribute to Apple buying up shares of itself and then Apple the corporation keeps that ownership. That of course is not the case - the shares are retired so that the ownership of the company is amongst fewer shares.
ApplePay is not a hit?
TouchID is not a hit?
Your problem is you are only thinking of HARDWARE.
Bottom line is all of Jobs stuff are basically the same thing: Computing devices. Mac, iPhone, iPod, iPad. They are all just computing devices in different form factors.
The magic happens with SOFTWARE and SERVICES and ECOSYSTEM. Features like ApplePay, TouchID, ect are the real innovations. So was the AppStore and iTunes Store. Without those the iPod/iPhone/iPad would not be nearly as successful.
Well, I wouldn't be so sure that BF is logically looking at the situation to understand or forecast the bear case, rather than just being 100% negative for the sake of it.
The problem in general is that the superficial analysis done by so many is based on anecdotes of other companies or industries, without understanding what the issues in those areas were. Microsoft was not able to grow meaningfully into mobile & consumer tech in the last 10 years despite having $billions in the bank, therefore Apple's money won't be able to help them? Talk about failing logic 101! Or mentioning Google's inability to develop any meaningful revenue earner beyond search-based advertising because they take a "throw betas at the wall" approach to product development. Or this analyst, who looks at Apple like Nokia, despite fact the two are not that similar at all (one makes mobile phones, the other mobile computers with a deep ecosystem in SW, services, & desktop/laptop/tablet computing).
It is necessary to think about the markets and challenges, rather than throw out anecdotes. Most of the media, some analysts, and certain posters on this forum don't seem to be able to do that.
This values them at less than about double the *cash* they have (I think ... doing the math in my head here). Heck Apple could take themselves private in 5 years, if shares hit $60, even if revenue only stays constant
While I find their targets a little ridiculous, how many times does it need to be stated that nothing works like this? Apple cannot "take themselves private", because they don't own themselves. Basically they would need investors with the cash to buy out existing shares. If they bought them back slowly as some of the more misinformed posters have suggested, this would merely result in outstanding shares that are inflated in value. Those shareholders would still own 100% of Apple, and Apple, the company, would still own 0% of itself. Does that make sense? It would be nearly impossible to get a group of investors with enough cash to take Apple private.
While I find their targets a little ridiculous, how many times does it need to be stated that nothing works like this? Apple cannot "take themselves private", because they don't own themselves. Basically they would need investors with the cash to buy out existing shares. If they bought them back slowly as some of the more misinformed posters have suggested, this would merely result in outstanding shares that are inflated in value. Those shareholders would still own 100% of Apple, and Apple, the company, would still own 0% of itself. Does that make sense? It would be nearly impossible to get a group of investors with enough cash to take Apple private.
You are absolutely correct. I was (inaccurately) using the "go private" idea to express the fact that a $60 valuation would be approaching Apple's own cash on hand in the not too distant future which seems pretty absurd (compared to valuations of e.g. Amazon, in particular!).
Berenberg is a small private bank in Germany that is absolutely irrelevant and even in Germany practically no-one ever heard about even though it is the oldest private bank left in Germany.
It's not even an investment firm... In fact they stated and emphasized that investment banking only happens on behalf of their clients. You know, very conservative banking tailored to the needs of HNWIs with an extreme need for hand-holding.
Covering what one of their analysts say is as relevant as covering your aunt's Facebook post about AAPL.
Idea here: "Let's make some extreme bearish predictions on APPL, so we get some press coverage then ppl. will know our name, and maybe it even goes viral." Yeah, pipe dreams of marketing executive.
End of story.
Cheap marketing ploy and ignored by nearly everyone, except here for click bait.
PS: The last cheap marketing ploy of them was that they send letters to their customers will less than 1M in their account that they will close their account if they don't stock it up. Private banks usually takes customers with a minimum of a 500K deposit when opening an account in most parts of central Europe.