Running the Numbers: The Roller Coaster That Is Apple 39 comments
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
It has been a crazy 15 months for the Apple (AAPL) share price. On the 22 August 2008 AAPL was trading at $176.79. By 16 January 2009 AAPL had dropped to $82.33 - down over half (53% down) in under five months. Today AAPL closed at $190.01 - up over 130% in under nine months. The graph below shows the closing prices over the period. So what do we think about AAPL?
Valuecruncher Interactive Analysts Report For Apple (AAPL)
We have the comparative group set as Microsoft (MSFT), IBM, Google (GOOG) and Hewlett-Packard (HPQ). You can change these peer companies on the site. For example you could add:
- Research In Motion (RIMM) - Interactive Analyst Report For $RIM
- Palm (PALM) - Interactive Analyst Report For $PALM
- Qualcomm (QCOM) - Interactive Analyst Report For $QCOM
So what do we think?
Discounted Cash Flow Valuation
We have completed a discounted cash flow valuation using our interactive tools (there is a “discounted cash flow analysis” link just under the company name on the company page). We have populated our model with a mixture of consensus analyst estimates and Valuecruncher estimates. Our analysis produces a valuation of US$176.16 for AAPL - 7.3% below the current share price. We see AAPL overvalued at the moment. But how about compared to a peer group?
Comparison Analysis
I changed the peer group companies to IBM, RIMM, PALM and QCOM. I am going to look at two of the metrics we use at Valuecruncher - Enterprise Value (EV)/Revenue and EV/EBITDA. Enterprise Value (EV) is simply market capitalization plus net debt [long-term borrowings less cash]. We use EV to capture the impact of debt and cash on a company’s balance sheet - market capitalization doesn’t capture different capital structures when comparing companies.
EV/Revenue shows how a dollar or revenues is being valued by the market against the comparator set. On an EV/Revenue basis AAPL is trading at 4.5x (AAPL is being valued at 4.5x last year’s revenues). This compares to IBM at 1.7x, RIMM at 3.5x, PALM at 3.4x and QCOM at 5.8x. AAPL’s profit margins (at the EBITDA line) are 20.9% of revenues. A dollar of AAPL revenues is being valued more than a dollar of RIMM revenues - despite that dollar of revenues producing less profit (on an EBITDA basis) than the RIMM revenues. A dollar of AAPL revenues is being valued less than a dollar of QCOM revenues - but QCOM produces nearly twice the profit (on an EBITDA basis) as $AAPL. We would expect the difference between the multiples for QCOM and AAPL to be larger - in QCOM’s favour. There are some big growth expectations for AAPL - on an EV/Revenue basis there appears to be a premium being paid for AAPL against the peer group.
If we lower the AAPL EV/Revenue multiple to 3.75x (a slight premium to RIMM) then this gives a share price of $163.30 - 14% below the current share price.
click to enlarge
EV/EBITDA shows how a dollar of profit (measured in as Earnings Before Interest Taxes Depreciation and Amortization) is being valued by the market against the comparator set. On an EV/EBITDA basis AAPL is trading at 21.51x (AAPL is being valued at 21.5x last year’s profit at the EBITDA line). A dollar of AAPL EBITDA is worth more than double a dollar of IBM, RIMM or QCOM EBITDA (PALM is losing money at the EBITDA line).
If we lower the AAPL EV/EBITDA multiple to 17.5x (a slight premium to QCOM) then this gives a share price of $160.06 - 16% below the current share price.
Summary
Based on our DCF valuation - AAPL looks overvalued. Looking at some comparators - the market is valuing AAPL highly compared to some peers. We believe if you are investing in AAPL at the current price - you are paying a full price and there are cheaper options available. We do recognize that there are a lot of AAPL fans out there however.
Disclosure: No positions
Related Articles
|






















This article has 39 comments:
Wait until next year, when Apple changed accounting to non-GAAP an the actual price will prove more than cheap.
Show me a "peer" that has an iPhone, an iPod, a Mac, chipdesign, iTunes, highest sales per foot stores ever, or a Steve Jobs, or even a Jonny Ive.
People must understand that Apple is completely incomparable to any other business, ever.
The analysis above is worthless. TOTALLY worthless!
On Oct 08 08:11 AM Jon T wrote:
>
> Show me a "peer" that has an iPhone, an iPod, a Mac, chipdesign,
> iTunes, highest sales per foot stores ever, or a Steve Jobs, or even
> a Jonny Ive.
>
> People must understand that Apple is completely incomparable to any
> other business, ever.
>
> The analysis above is worthless. TOTALLY worthless!
give me a break !
Apple at $250 /share next year .
btw ... i think the analysis is totally off the mark.
It's really rather sad that people pass this stuff off as "analysis" when it is so glaringly lacking.
Your the one that is so absurdly wrong with regard to earnings. anyone that thinks that an accounting change (picture an accountant making a journal entry) can change the value of teh company is very ignorant. The FASB change does not increase cash flow or increase the numbers of iphones sold. It does nothing to change the economics of the business or cash flow. It is simply form over substance. The multiple will drop with the increase in paper earnings. You and the others that believe the value goes up over an accounting change are simpletons.
On Oct 08 07:51 AM See through it wrote:
> Your analysis is so wrong that it's astounding. The FASB just changed
> the accounting rules that apply to Apple so that their earnings will
> no longer be dramatically understated. This is well known. Using
> the old GAAP numbers for comparison is grossly wrong and smacks of
> incompetence. BTW, APPL is underpriced (based on growth rates and
> earnings) compared to these stocks (and all tech stocks in general)
> when you use data the accounts for their real earnings.
I think AAPL is fairly valued right now at about 19x 2010 earnings. That's with $10/share earnings estimate. If that estimate is on the low side (some analysts are predicting $11) then you're paying about 17X forward earnings. These are GAAP earnings estimates for 2010, since by then the accounting change will be in effect and the difference between GAAP and non-GAAP will once again become negligible.
On Oct 08 11:24 AM RLLH wrote:
> I have to be suspicious when a company changes the accounting rules
> to make itself look better. Enron or Worldcom always come to mind.
On Oct 08 11:24 AM RLLH wrote:
> I have to be suspicious when a company changes the accounting rules
> to make itself look better. Enron or Worldcom always come to mind.
On Oct 08 11:44 AM Anthony B wrote:
> I'd like to see the same analysis with Discounted Cash Flows of Operating
> Cash Flows. Why did you use EBITDA? EBITDA still starts with Non-GAAP
> earnings.
>
> I think AAPL is fairly valued right now at about 19x 2010 earnings.
> That's with $10/share earnings estimate. If that estimate is on
> the low side (some analysts are predicting $11) then you're paying
> about 17X forward earnings. These are GAAP earnings estimates for
> 2010, since by then the accounting change will be in effect and the
> difference between GAAP and non-GAAP will once again become negligible.
On Oct 08 11:44 AM iliketogolf wrote:
>
> Your the one that is so absurdly wrong with regard to earnings.
> anyone that thinks that an accounting change (picture an accountant
> making a journal entry) can change the value of teh company is very
> ignorant. The FASB change does not increase cash flow or increase
> the numbers of iphones sold. It does nothing to change the economics
> of the business or cash flow. It is simply form over substance.
> The multiple will drop with the increase in paper earnings. You
> and the others that believe the value goes up over an accounting
> change are simpletons.
>
> On Oct 08 07:51 AM See through it wrote:
On Oct 08 11:02 AM sasha1975 wrote:
> i wonder what you wud think about a seriously overrated stock like
> PALM.
>
> btw ... i think the analysis is totally off the mark.
On Oct 08 12:11 PM Stefan Sidahmed wrote:
> Your DCF is using GAAP revenues and is flawed. GAAP underscores
> 2009 sales by about $10B. Of course you would have to adjust all
> your forward revenues.
On Oct 08 11:59 AM Wireless Wiz wrote:
> Stick with golf then, your heated response is absurd. It is not the
> actual value that changes, but the perception thereof. When you have
> to defer a huge chunck of revenues and assoc cogs into the future
> for one of your hottest products, then yes, perhaps the true earnings
> do get understated. When you no longer have to defer those amounts,
> a better picture of the actual economics of the business emerges.
> That is all that is happening here. And if you were smart enough
> to follow the free cash flow, then all this wouldn't even matter.
> And Apple disclosed that they produced over $9 billion of fcf last
> year, or roughly $10/share. This is true cash in the bank earnings,
> not accounting gimmickry.
They make modest, strategic acquisitions. iTunes (was SoundJam), PASemi, Final Cut Pro. Three examples. No product from PASemi, yet, but maybe by 2010.
On Oct 08 02:12 PM JamesApple wrote:
> What encourages me most about Apple is it's fiscal wisdom in the
> lack of acquisitions, the wisely spent capital on expanding/building
> of network operations centers, the release of Snow Leopard, the escalating
> accumulation of cash, the complete capture of high end smartphone
> markets, and the return of Mr. Steve Jobs.
On Oct 08 11:24 AM RLLH wrote:
> I have to be suspicious when a company changes the accounting rules
> to make itself look better. Enron or Worldcom always come to mind.
I give Apple a year to be worth far more than msft. They are already at about 3/4 market cap.
The reason the stock is UNDERvalued is because 90% of people are still using Windows. I'll tell you, things change over time. In the 1980's, a lot of people were using Commodores.
On Oct 08 09:29 PM forge98 wrote:
> Some of you people make me sick. The author is hardly slamming AAPL.
> Yet you freak out at the thought that precious AAPL may be slightly
> over valued. AAPL produces nothing. They design toys. They charge
> way more than everyone else. I don't care how much cash they generate.
> To me, I would never buy it here because soon the consumer will be
> forced to choose between necessities and toys.
On Oct 08 09:29 PM forge98 wrote:
> Some of you people make me sick. The author is hardly slamming AAPL.
> Yet you freak out at the thought that precious AAPL may be slightly
> over valued. AAPL produces nothing. They design toys. They charge
> way more than everyone else. I don't care how much cash they generate.
> To me, I would never buy it here because soon the consumer will be
> forced to choose between necessities and toys.
These are not investors , they are cheerleading fans, confusing sound investing with how much they like apple products.
(long GOOG MSFT MOT )
On Oct 09 05:16 AM Stefan Sidahmed wrote:
> Its not about 'love' or 'hate' of Apple. It is about bad analysis.
>
i have been an apple user since 1982.
have 3 macs in the house @ the moment.
people who do heavy duty graphics have gotta have their macs.
stock was a market performer from 1985 to end of 2004, since then has outperformed. will they be able to keep it up? remains to be seen. priced today same as december 2007. no dividend.
> jack
Source: www.complianceweek.com.../
On Oct 09 03:37 PM jack dee wrote:
> actually it is about loving apple , here at SA. THe apple fanboys
> gather and condem anything that has even a slight neg hint about
> apple.
>
> These are not investors , they are cheerleading fans, confusing sound
> investing with how much they like apple products.