Pessimistic, questionable iPhone supplier rumor sends shares of Apple further downward
Shares of Apple stock fell more than 2 percent in early trading Thursday, following a highly questionable report from the Far East claiming that Apple's integrated circuit suppliers are concerned over the prospect of fewer iPhone-related chip orders.
Apple is alleged to have reduced iPhone parts forecasts at an undisclosed "major" analog integrated circuit firm, DigiTimes reported on Thursday. Market watchers attributed the negative report from the unreliable supply chain-focused publication for losses seen by Apple at the outset of trading, though shares have recovered slightly as the day has progressed.
Confusingly, the report in question specifically claimed that overall shipments of the iPhone 6s are expected to reach as many as 80 million units in the third quarter of 2015, which concluded on Wednesday -- less than a week after the iPhone 6s launched.
Apple sold 13 million units in the iPhone 6s launch weekend, during which some models were severely constrained with new orders shipping in weeks. Given that Apple only keeps a few weeks' worth of channel inventory for its products, it's implausible that the company's tightly run supply chain somehow built another 67 million iPhone 6s units within the three days following last weekend's launch.
While the publication does occasionally correctly predict Apple's future product plans, DigiTimes is notorious for playing fast and loose with supply chain rumors. For example, earlier this year it erroneously claimed that Apple planned to launch a new 4-inch handset this fall alongside the iPhone 6s and iPhone 6s Plus. And last fall, it gave an exceptionally vague 15-month launch window for the then-widely-anticipated 12-inch MacBook with Retina display.
Years ago, Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook warned investors not to read too much into supply chain rumors.
"The supply chain is very complex, and we obviously have multiple sources for things," Cook said in 2013. "Even if a particular data point were factual, it would be impossible to interpret that data point as to what it meant for our business."
Apple frequently uses multiple suppliers for the same part -- the A9 chip in the new iPhones, for instance, is built by both Samsung and TSMC. The company will skew orders towards one firm or another based on a manufacturer's technology, capacity, and pricing.
Apple is alleged to have reduced iPhone parts forecasts at an undisclosed "major" analog integrated circuit firm, DigiTimes reported on Thursday. Market watchers attributed the negative report from the unreliable supply chain-focused publication for losses seen by Apple at the outset of trading, though shares have recovered slightly as the day has progressed.
Confusingly, the report in question specifically claimed that overall shipments of the iPhone 6s are expected to reach as many as 80 million units in the third quarter of 2015, which concluded on Wednesday -- less than a week after the iPhone 6s launched.
Apple sold 13 million units in the iPhone 6s launch weekend, during which some models were severely constrained with new orders shipping in weeks. Given that Apple only keeps a few weeks' worth of channel inventory for its products, it's implausible that the company's tightly run supply chain somehow built another 67 million iPhone 6s units within the three days following last weekend's launch.
While the publication does occasionally correctly predict Apple's future product plans, DigiTimes is notorious for playing fast and loose with supply chain rumors. For example, earlier this year it erroneously claimed that Apple planned to launch a new 4-inch handset this fall alongside the iPhone 6s and iPhone 6s Plus. And last fall, it gave an exceptionally vague 15-month launch window for the then-widely-anticipated 12-inch MacBook with Retina display.
Years ago, Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook warned investors not to read too much into supply chain rumors.
"The supply chain is very complex, and we obviously have multiple sources for things," Cook said in 2013. "Even if a particular data point were factual, it would be impossible to interpret that data point as to what it meant for our business."
Apple frequently uses multiple suppliers for the same part -- the A9 chip in the new iPhones, for instance, is built by both Samsung and TSMC. The company will skew orders towards one firm or another based on a manufacturer's technology, capacity, and pricing.
Comments
If Apple is looking to buy back stock, now is a good opportunity. I'm not saying that Apple had anything to do with this rumor, but it certainly isn't in their best interest to respond to it right away.
"Overall shipments of the iPhone 6s series are expected to reach 75-80 million units in third-quartet 2015, but the estimated volume for fourth-quarter 2015 has been reduced to 65-70 million, the sources cited the IC supplier as saying."
80+70 = 150 million phones for Q3 and Q4 combined.
75+65 = 140 million phones for Q3 and Q4 combined.
WTF is the problem? Thats way more than the 115 million sold last year.
Expectations; always the expectations.
"Overall shipments of the iPhone 6s series are expected to reach 75-80 million units in third-quartet 2015, but the estimated volume for fourth-quarter 2015 has been reduced to 65-70 million, the sources cited the IC supplier as saying."80+70 = 150 million phones for Q3 and Q4 combined.
75+65 = 140 million phones for Q3 and Q4 combined.
WTF is the problem? Thats way more than the 115 million sold last year.
The problem is that WS got no clue how many suppliers Apple have and just based on a rumor from a single supplier, it estimated the % of one supplier as the whole % supply. It totally BS. What if Apple reduced order from TMSC supply but increase from Samsung? No one knows and WS just love to manipulate the stock just based on an unknown bs rumor from the East.
"Wall Street logic"
AAPL is wonderful toy for WS: easy to push down with rumors, and promptly push up by Apple with buyback. Hedge funds and speculators are having big fun and making a lot of money.
So my question is are they squeezing retails like us or are other firms dumb enough to dump these type of reports?
This stock is a steaming deuce. And I say that being a not-small shareholder for numerous years. I'm not selling anytime soon, especially being pushed by irrational frustration. But it just kills me to see AMZN or FACE or GOOGL up for dumb name change reasons or despite P/E ratios that are sky high, all while AAPL prints money every damn quarter and then tanks 2% day-after-day.
This stock is a steaming deuce. And I say that being a not-small shareholder for numerous years. I'm not selling anytime soon, especially being pushed by irrational frustration. But it just kills me to see AMZN or FACE or GOOGL up for dumb name change reasons or despite P/E ratios that are sky high, all while AAPL prints money every damn quarter and then tanks 2% day-after-day.
All of these motherfkers in WS should be in prison for AAPL manipulation.
Wallstreet treats Apple like a company that could go bankrupt any day now, or could be made irrelevant or obsolete by some random new product. Every shitty rumor gets the stock diving, while extremely good news..sends the stock diving a bit less. Meanwhile, Apple's future prospects, by any rationale measure, could NOT be more positive, going by every single metric and their gameplan.
Unbelievable.
There is no way in the world Sog will escape from his 1-year self-ban at this point, because AAPL at $150 by the end of the year is an absolute impossibility.
Anybody here know when AAPLs buyback 'black-out' period starts / stops for this ER?
Apparently, market manipulation is very easy.
I heard from a reliable source that Apple is going to sell a billion phones this quarter and maybe and 10 billion phones by the end of next year. And all at 99% NET margin.
Since there are so (relatively) few institutional investors in AAPL, I'd have to guess that it trades mainly based on sentiment and momentum. Emotional mobs of traders are a very dangerous thing when there is a continual stream of negative news about Apple being fed to news outlets and from "analyst notes" with an agenda.
Your source must be accurate, after all it came straight from the Internet.