Apple: Are Investors Overlooking Cash Earnings? 29 comments
July 30, 2008
| about: AAPL
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Apple Inc (AAPL) currently at $156.63: I believe investors have become overly fixated on Apple’s expected accounting income, while ignoring Apple’s impressive free cash flow generating ability. Free cash flow, not earnings reported in the accounting statements, determines the true value of a firm. AAPL’s high margins, coupled with minimal capital investment needs, enables it to produce robust free cash flow. Another issue is the iPhone accounting treatment, which conceals the true magnitude of its cash generation. According to my estimations, the 3G model’s cash flow per unit is higher than its predecessor. In addition, Apple receives these cash flows much sooner compared to the old model. Not only will Apple sell many more 3G models, the per-unit impact on cash earnings will be much greater. Therefore, when shifting focus to cash earnings, as opposed to accounting earnings, AAPL looks attractive at current levels.
Earnings Expectations:
At the Q3 earnings call, Apple guided well below expectations for Q4, and gave a weak gross margin forecast for FY09. Shares took a hit and prompted Wall Street analysts to reduce their 4Q08 and FY09 estimates. Consensus estimates for FY08 & FY09 are $5.20 & $6.05, respectively. Early this year, the FY09 estimate was ~$6.50, then drifted lower to ~ $6.35 where it hovered for several months. Since Apple announced its margin guidance, the consensus FY09 EPS estimate has plunged to $6.05.
Apple shares currently trade @ 27x FY09 EPS, with expected annual growth of 16%. A 27x multiple for 16% growth isn’t exactly cheap. However, evaluating Apple on an EPS-multiple basis is misleading due to Apple’s iPhone accounting treatment. Considering Apple’s cash flow/share, the stock looks attractive.
Wall Street estimates are for accounting income -- what Apple is expected to report, not what Apple will actually earn. Cash flow is the true metric that matters, not accounting earnings. Accounting earnings are a product of a firm’s finance department, and cash earnings are a product of customer behavior. Thus, one shouldn’t place too much emphasis on accounting income and quarterly estimates.
The amount of cash flow available for distribution to owners determines intrinsic value. Accounting income and cash flow are not the same, and often accounting income is a poor proxy for distributable income, hence intrinsic equity value.
Evolution of Market Expectations:
The 3G iPhone developments -- new markets, new revenue model, lower price points, and new features, etc -- didn’t seem to affect AAPL shares much. However, concerns over Steve Jobs’s health and guidance have pressured shares. iPhone demand has been relentless since the launch as stores struggle to keep supplied. Analysts have raised their forecasts for unit sales, yet earnings estimates have only changed slightly (before CC).
Earlier this year, investors and analysts were questioning whether Apple would achieve its stated sales goal of 10 million units in CY08. Some began to think the iPhone was going to turn out to be a disappointment, and that expectations were certainly excessive. However, iPhone sales projections rose significantly with the June announcement. Many analysts raised estimates to more than 20 million for 2009. Yet, there was then the question of reduced profitability due to the reduced price points. Originally, the thinking was that volume could certainly expand but the effect on the bottom line would be subdued due to shrinking margins. Yet, it was soon agreed that margins won’t be significantly impacted due to the larger-that-originally expected subsidy payment. Instead of receiving a cut of monthly carrier payments over 24 months, Apple will receive an upfront lump-sum payment that is likely equivalent.
So, we have a massive increase for iPhone sales expectations with profitability remaining somewhat intact, yet AAPL shares react moderately and analysts only revise estimates slightly higher. Ostensibly, earnings estimates didn’t change significantly due to the iPhone accounting treatment that spreads revenue over 24 months. Thus, iPhone sales won’t really impact the income statement until a much higher run-rate persists for many quarters so that revenue recognition has had time to catch-up.
Shares reacted little to the June announcement, until somebody pointed out that Jobs looked unhealthy, causing the stock to tank. Shares later recovered only to get slammed again after the Q3 earnings call when management refused to elaborate on Job’s health condition. Panic over Jobs' health has abated, but concerns regarding Apple’s gross margin guidance and susceptibility to a weakened consumer still linger.
3G Produces More Cash Flow & Sooner:
The transition from shared payments from carriers to an upfront subsidy payment increases Apple’s intrinsic value.
Apple’s cash flow will increase from receiving an upfront, one-time payment opposed to recurring monthly payments. Originally, when an iPhone was sold, Apple only received cash associated with the handset sale, revenue which probably averaged around $430-$440. Apple then would receive $15/mo (guesstimate) for the next 24 months, $360 in total payments, or PV of $319 @ 12% discount rate. Present value of total CF is ~$750/unit, However, this isn’t a very realistic assumption to model. Actual revenue/unit is significantly less due to several reasons.
First, not all units receive full 24 months of payments due to iPhones being lost, stolen, broken, etc. Monthly payments are then attributed to the replacement unit and the original device no longer generates monthly revenue payments. AT&T shares revenue per iPhone customer (activated device), not for each device sold. Thus, Apple has sold two handsets yet only collects $15/mo, or theoretically $7.50 per device.
Second, not all iPhones sold were activated with a participating carrier (unlocked), so a significant percentage of legacy iPhones (maybe 40%-50%) don’t receive carrier payments. Unlocking has actually been beneficial because it has allowed Apple to sell units that it would have never sold, and it has generated product exposure in foreign markets. Yet, for the sake of modeling, and for cash flow comparison between the former and current revenue models, we can’t assume that the average monthly payment is $15 across all units.
Third, many units will be replaced with 3G iPhones before the full 24 months elapses. 2.5G iPhone owners who upgrade to the subsidized 3G model contribute maybe 12 months (or less) worth of payments. Piper Jaffray’s survey on launch day found 38% of 3G buyers were current iPhone owners.
Just for the sake of illustration, assume 50% of iPhones are unlocked (or lost/broken), and one-half of the other 50% upgrade to the 3G model after 12 months. This leaves 25% with 24 months of revenue payments At $15/month shared carrier payment, the average unit revenue/month is $5.63, or $135 over 24 months. Assuming ASP of $430, total revenue/unit is $565 (not accounting for time value of money). Therefore, it’s unrealistic to assume that the legacy iPhone revenue model was bringing in $790/unit ($430 + $15 x 24m).
With the subsidy payment model, there isn’t any uncertainty as to what the actual realized revenue / unit will be, since all payments occur on the front-end. Sales thus far have been skewed towards the 16GB model, which AT&T (T) is offering for $299 with a 24-month contract, or $699 for no commitment. Similar arrangements exist in foreign markets, and the pricing works out to be roughly equivalent on a currency translation basis. So, AAPL could be capturing over $600/unit; a more conservative figure would be $550 or $500. Thus, Apple is likely receiving revenue per unit commensurate to the 2.5G iPhone.
A major point that I feel is overlooked relates to the timing of cash flows. For example, consider the following illustrative assumptions. Apple receives $600 upfront on the 3G opposed to $450 upfront and $150 in total cash payments spread over 24 months for the 2.5G. The accounting will look the same for both models since total revenue/unit is equivalent, and in both cases is recognized over 24 months resulting in revenue of $75 per quarter. Even though both scenarios appear to be similar from an accounting standpoint, the cash flows are different. All cash flow from the 3G hits at the time of the sale, where as just a portion of 2.5G cash flow occurs on the front-end.
To summarize my points:
1) 3G iPhone realized revenue/unit is higher- not every 2.5G iPhone generates shared carrier revenue, and not all units that have attached payments will survive the full 24 months.
2) Time Value of Money- Apple receives 3G iPhone revenue upfront, whereas the previous model entailed deferred revenue payments. Not only is there the opportunity cost of forgone investment alternatives, the cash payments are uncertain.
3) 3G model’s production cost is estimated to be about $55 less that the original model.
4) Demand, demand, demand. More markets, more features, cheaper price. The first iPhone took more than two months to sell 1 million units, which the 3G iPhone surpassed its first weekend.
Wall Street estimates are for accounting income -- what Apple is expected to report, not what Apple will actually earn. Cash flow is the true metric that matters, not accounting earnings. Accounting earnings are a product of a firm’s finance department, and cash earnings are a product of customer behavior. Thus, one shouldn’t place too much emphasis on accounting income and quarterly estimates.
The amount of cash flow available for distribution to owners determines intrinsic value. Accounting income and cash flow are not the same, and often accounting income is a poor proxy for distributable income, hence intrinsic equity value.
Evolution of Market Expectations:
The 3G iPhone developments -- new markets, new revenue model, lower price points, and new features, etc -- didn’t seem to affect AAPL shares much. However, concerns over Steve Jobs’s health and guidance have pressured shares. iPhone demand has been relentless since the launch as stores struggle to keep supplied. Analysts have raised their forecasts for unit sales, yet earnings estimates have only changed slightly (before CC).
Earlier this year, investors and analysts were questioning whether Apple would achieve its stated sales goal of 10 million units in CY08. Some began to think the iPhone was going to turn out to be a disappointment, and that expectations were certainly excessive. However, iPhone sales projections rose significantly with the June announcement. Many analysts raised estimates to more than 20 million for 2009. Yet, there was then the question of reduced profitability due to the reduced price points. Originally, the thinking was that volume could certainly expand but the effect on the bottom line would be subdued due to shrinking margins. Yet, it was soon agreed that margins won’t be significantly impacted due to the larger-that-originally expected subsidy payment. Instead of receiving a cut of monthly carrier payments over 24 months, Apple will receive an upfront lump-sum payment that is likely equivalent.
So, we have a massive increase for iPhone sales expectations with profitability remaining somewhat intact, yet AAPL shares react moderately and analysts only revise estimates slightly higher. Ostensibly, earnings estimates didn’t change significantly due to the iPhone accounting treatment that spreads revenue over 24 months. Thus, iPhone sales won’t really impact the income statement until a much higher run-rate persists for many quarters so that revenue recognition has had time to catch-up.
Shares reacted little to the June announcement, until somebody pointed out that Jobs looked unhealthy, causing the stock to tank. Shares later recovered only to get slammed again after the Q3 earnings call when management refused to elaborate on Job’s health condition. Panic over Jobs' health has abated, but concerns regarding Apple’s gross margin guidance and susceptibility to a weakened consumer still linger.
3G Produces More Cash Flow & Sooner:
The transition from shared payments from carriers to an upfront subsidy payment increases Apple’s intrinsic value.
Apple’s cash flow will increase from receiving an upfront, one-time payment opposed to recurring monthly payments. Originally, when an iPhone was sold, Apple only received cash associated with the handset sale, revenue which probably averaged around $430-$440. Apple then would receive $15/mo (guesstimate) for the next 24 months, $360 in total payments, or PV of $319 @ 12% discount rate. Present value of total CF is ~$750/unit, However, this isn’t a very realistic assumption to model. Actual revenue/unit is significantly less due to several reasons.
First, not all units receive full 24 months of payments due to iPhones being lost, stolen, broken, etc. Monthly payments are then attributed to the replacement unit and the original device no longer generates monthly revenue payments. AT&T shares revenue per iPhone customer (activated device), not for each device sold. Thus, Apple has sold two handsets yet only collects $15/mo, or theoretically $7.50 per device.
Second, not all iPhones sold were activated with a participating carrier (unlocked), so a significant percentage of legacy iPhones (maybe 40%-50%) don’t receive carrier payments. Unlocking has actually been beneficial because it has allowed Apple to sell units that it would have never sold, and it has generated product exposure in foreign markets. Yet, for the sake of modeling, and for cash flow comparison between the former and current revenue models, we can’t assume that the average monthly payment is $15 across all units.
Third, many units will be replaced with 3G iPhones before the full 24 months elapses. 2.5G iPhone owners who upgrade to the subsidized 3G model contribute maybe 12 months (or less) worth of payments. Piper Jaffray’s survey on launch day found 38% of 3G buyers were current iPhone owners.
Just for the sake of illustration, assume 50% of iPhones are unlocked (or lost/broken), and one-half of the other 50% upgrade to the 3G model after 12 months. This leaves 25% with 24 months of revenue payments At $15/month shared carrier payment, the average unit revenue/month is $5.63, or $135 over 24 months. Assuming ASP of $430, total revenue/unit is $565 (not accounting for time value of money). Therefore, it’s unrealistic to assume that the legacy iPhone revenue model was bringing in $790/unit ($430 + $15 x 24m).
With the subsidy payment model, there isn’t any uncertainty as to what the actual realized revenue / unit will be, since all payments occur on the front-end. Sales thus far have been skewed towards the 16GB model, which AT&T (T) is offering for $299 with a 24-month contract, or $699 for no commitment. Similar arrangements exist in foreign markets, and the pricing works out to be roughly equivalent on a currency translation basis. So, AAPL could be capturing over $600/unit; a more conservative figure would be $550 or $500. Thus, Apple is likely receiving revenue per unit commensurate to the 2.5G iPhone.
A major point that I feel is overlooked relates to the timing of cash flows. For example, consider the following illustrative assumptions. Apple receives $600 upfront on the 3G opposed to $450 upfront and $150 in total cash payments spread over 24 months for the 2.5G. The accounting will look the same for both models since total revenue/unit is equivalent, and in both cases is recognized over 24 months resulting in revenue of $75 per quarter. Even though both scenarios appear to be similar from an accounting standpoint, the cash flows are different. All cash flow from the 3G hits at the time of the sale, where as just a portion of 2.5G cash flow occurs on the front-end.
To summarize my points:
1) 3G iPhone realized revenue/unit is higher- not every 2.5G iPhone generates shared carrier revenue, and not all units that have attached payments will survive the full 24 months.
2) Time Value of Money- Apple receives 3G iPhone revenue upfront, whereas the previous model entailed deferred revenue payments. Not only is there the opportunity cost of forgone investment alternatives, the cash payments are uncertain.
3) 3G model’s production cost is estimated to be about $55 less that the original model.
4) Demand, demand, demand. More markets, more features, cheaper price. The first iPhone took more than two months to sell 1 million units, which the 3G iPhone surpassed its first weekend.
The new 3G iPhone and revenue model will dramatically boost Apple’s cash flow that should result in a higher valuation. Not only is demand substantially stronger for the 3G model, but the actual revenue/unit realized will be higher, and the cash flow will occur sooner.
iPhone Impact:
If Apple sells 20 million iPhones next year-- assuming: $500 ASP, 50% gross margin. 30% tax rate -- it will generate incremental cash flow of $3.90/share. Assuming that Apple sells 5 million in each quarter, the accounting treatment would only recognize $1.23/share for 2009. Cash earnings are more than 3x higher than reported earnings. Using more aggressive assumptions: $600 ASP, $250 COGS, the iPhone would produce $5.50 CF/share. Subscription accounting would only report $1.72/share.
The assumptions I am modeling for FY09: 20 million units, $350 subsidy, 65% 16GB ($299) & 35% 8GB ($199) = $614 ASP, $233 production cost, 30% tax rate. This calculates out to 5.32B in after-tax cash flow, or $5.92/share.
Apple’s FCF/share [ttm] is roughly $6.84, a price multiple of 23x. In contrast, Apple trades 31x EPS [ttm]. I estimate that $1.10 of the $6.84 CF/share is iPhone related, thus FCF/share associated with all other segments is $5.74. With a 25% growth rate, non-iPhone CF increases to $7.18/share in FY09, and adding $5.92 from iPhone, CF for FY09 totals $13.10/share. This figure equates to a price multiple of 12x, and as mentioned previously, Apple is trading 27x FY09 EPS estimate of $6.05.
This is more or less a “back of the envelope” exercise, but the purpose is to illustrate the vast difference between Apple’s cash flow and accounting EPS due to iPhone revenue recognition.
Apple’s Free Cash Flow-
Apple is an impressive free cash flow generator. The primary components of free cash flow are 1) NOPAT- net operating profit after-tax 2) Working-capital requirements 3) Investment in fixed assets (capex).
Apple’s has negative working-capital requirements due to rapid inventory turns. AAPL turns its inventory about every 7 days, or 50x a year. Apple’s collection period for outstanding receivables is slightly more than 20 days, yet it doesn’t pay its suppliers for roughly 90 days. Thus, Apple doesn’t need to sink additional cash into working capital as sales increase, since it’s funded through trade credit. This would allow more cash to be distributed to shareholders since it doesn’t need to be retained to fund operations.
Apple’s capital investment needs are quite modest. FY07 capex was $735 million and $893 million for the last 4 quarters. This equates to roughly 3% of revenues, and when depreciation is taken out, net investment is approximately 1.7% of total sales. A sizable portion of Apple’s capital investment relates to retail store growth. Apple’s stores produce extremely high revenue per square foot, as well as attracting consumers unfamiliar with the Apple brand. Retail stores perform a marking function for Apple due their appeal that generates substantial foot traffic. The stores are also ideal for cross-selling Macs to consumers who have come to purchase an iPhone or iPod. Thus, Apple’s retail store strategy has proven to be a very worthwhile investment.
Much of Apple’s assets are intangible, thus not reported on the balance sheet. Intellectual capital and brand equity are just two examples. Relatively speaking, Apple doesn’t have to spend heavily on developing these assets. Apple’s marking spend is 2% of revenue as it enjoys doses of free advertising from the media and word-of-mouth from satisfied users. Apple’s research and development expense is just slightly more that 3% of sales. In comparison, R&D for Yahoo ~16%, Google ~13%, and Amazon ~ 6%.
Conclusion:
In summary, EPS [ttm] is $5.11 or 15% net margin, and free cash flow as a percentage of revenue is 20%. As iPhone sales increase, these two metrics will diverge further, yet the focus should be on cash flow. It’s widely accepted that the iPhone has a much higher gross margin than the overall Apple business, yet due to subscription accounting, the iPhone’s impact on overall gross margin is very minimal. Thus, panic over the gross margin forecasts is misguided because on a cash basis, gross margins would be much higher. Investors should then place less weight on Wall Street earnings estimates. Therefore, when evaluating Apple on its prospective cash flows, shares look attractive under $160.
Disclosure: None
Related Articles
|
Find People on SA
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largest
increase in followers
in the last 7 days-
1
David Fry
-
2
Philip Davis
-
3
Tyler Durden
-
4
Bill Gross
-
5
Peter Schiff
Fastest Climbers » -
1
-
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most activeSee all
Instabloggers.
Top Instabloggers » -
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 29 comments:
20smoney.com
First: You are making a hefty assumption that AT&T gets out of paying Apple a monthly fee if the customer changes phones or plans; this assumption impacts your numbers dramatically. Do you have insight into the contractual relationship between AT&T and Apple? Because I seriously doubt Apple didn't address the sub-24 month subscription questions for which you assume answers in your model. AT&T doesn't let people out of their contracts scot-free - why do you assume Apple would?
Second, in all of the media reports I've found, the range of monthly revenue from iPhone I has been estimated at between $8 and $18, with $10 the most common estimate by far. I think your $15 estimate is high, but I have no inside knowledge. Based on my analysis of the iPhone impact on both T and AAPL, I've guessed that it was $10-12, but there were way too many unknowns to bring any real level of confidence.
3rd: iPhone subsidy: I don't think there's any way it's as high as $350. If a customer breaks a brand-new 2-year contract with AT&T, the termination fee is just $175. If AT&T were paying twice this much, why wouldn't it increase this fee? Based on the oft-mentioned $10/month iPhone I subsidy ($240/2 years) and this $175 termination fee on G3, I think the subsidy is no more than $240, and most likely about $200. This means the average revenue per phone is more like $435, which hits your gross margin number pretty substantially (50% strikes me as unlikely in any case, as Apple continues to indicate an increasing value on market share).
The other error you make is believing Apple will only grow their earnings 16%. Apple has grown their earnings by several times that and nearly twice that this past quarter; a quarter with little reported iphone
revenues at all(they stopped accruing iphone earnings for much of the quarter due to the new software coming out and they sold very few iphones due to selling out the old model and transitioning to the new phone).
Earnings estimates may have come down the last month, but the target price for Apples stock keeps rising as most analysts understand
the accounting issues you talk about in this article, and they know the investing community will catch on at some point not long from now.
the huge(over $20 Billion) in cash no no debt Apple keeps on its bslnce sheet. That works out to over $23 per share in cash.
Also, your analysis doesn't include the impact from iphone cannibalizing ipod sales and the addition of the apps store and mobileme revenue streams.
Third, the current accounting methods will show that the iphone represents 5% of Apple current sales. That number will move to over 20% by 1Q09 without including app store and mobileme revenue. By the 1Q09, the iphone will represent the 2nd largest revenue catagory to Apple. Assuming minimal ipod sales erosion (15% or less), how does this not warrant an increase in valuations.
Finally, your 2009 20 million iphone sales are low, extremely low by about 15 million. In terms of cash, Apple will be sitting on about $28 billion by the end of 2008 and adding about $3billion per quarter to that number. This time next year, Apple will have somewhere in the vicinity of $44billion. This stock is worth much more than $160/share and its p/e multiple should be in the area of 35.
Yes some arguments on details - but overall a great job.
IMHO
"The company has also further delayed the launch of its smartphone, called nuvifone, to the first half of 2009, saying meeting some of the carrier specific requirements will take longer than anticipated.
The company has now pushed back the launch twice. Its initial plan was to launch the nuvifone in the third quarter."
us.rd.yahoo.com/financ...
Guess it is not so easy to make a smartphone! By May-June 2009 they will really have missed the boat. Unless they can cut costs drastically. But since this phone costs are more in the service plan, this is not likely.
They are having a special to students, $300 off of iPod when you buy a Mac, while supplies last. Got to say it makes me wonder if maybe they are tryng to clear the iPod Touch for something new?
Lately it seems like there is a new article every day about Steve Jobs and his "health issues" . It's like a slow drip of poison to AAPL stock to keep it down, since no one can seem to find any negative fundamental or business-related problems with the company.
Thanks.
Apple has huge cash reserves, spends more on r and d every year...something it's competitors should learn about! (but let's not tell them:))
for conservative or value investors who follow Warren Buffet, Apple has built an amazing 'moat' and it's getting bigger by the minute. even microsoft with all it's $ and effort (and time;Vista, sigh) could only manage to come up with the Zune, in brown, giving a whole new meaning to the term 'clueless'.
Apple gets it... it has multiple products, multiple profit streams, and a very sound and innovative company.
thank you for a great and comprehensive article!
Apple is most definitely going for marketshare, and that is great news to the investors.
I don't think all the scare tactics, re Job's etc... are working nearly as well as some thought they would. Everyone says the shares took a bit hit, but compared to last January, no big deal. This is one of the most volitile stocks, but also ranks 5th in growing market cap.
Meanwhile, their competition, MSFT is floundering, and ranks 7th in most market cap LOST.
It's time for Apple to make that lower priced model that will truely shock the industry, and wake up the herd.
Very impressive piece of work. I'm not sure about some of your assumptions, but let's say they're right on target. You say: "Therefore, when evaluating Apple on its prospective cash flows, shares look attractive under $160." Why $160? Is it just because that's about where the stock is today? How about $170, $180? What is it about the FCF that gets you to precisely $160?
I predict sales of 15 million iPhones by end of CY08, and a further 35 to 45 million in CY09 as momentum builds and supplies ramp up to satisfy demand.
The point many analysts miss is that this is not just a phone. It's a real computing platform, the start of a trend which will be amplified significantly with continued software improvements (for example advanced GPS capabilities) and a new product announcement within the next two to four months
Couple this with the app store and even assuming that each new user of the iPhone spends an average of just $10.00 in the app store and you see the potential for another free billion of revenue which will be accounted for on an immediate basis.
Actual FCF/share will resemble something more like $20.
The stock is still extremely underpriced at $250 let alone $160. A more reasonable expectation within two quarters would be between $275 and $300, and that doesn't assume an interim split. Assuming 35x, it should even give Google a run for its money on a per share price.
Those willing to be aggressive on accumulation and willing to wait out what I feel is a contrived pullback will be richly rewarded.
" ,,,,,, iPhone subsidy: I don't think there's any way it's as high as $350. If a customer breaks a brand-new 2-year contract with AT&T, the termination fee is just $175. If AT&T were paying twice this much, why wouldn't it increase this fee?"
For a contract for exist, a customer has to incur a billing, thus there will at least be a month of service a customer owes if they cancel.
$175- Termination
$110- 1 month Service (Original iPhone ARPU $95 + $15 3G price increase (data +text)
$~40 Activation Fee
$325 Total
A point was raised whether it would be cheaper to pay $199 and break the contract as opposed to paying $599 for not having to commit to a contract, Essentially the conclusion was that it wouldn't be that much, if at all cheaper, and if it were AT&T wouldn't offer this discrepancy in pricing becaue it would encourage that behavior.
".....First: You are making a hefty assumption that AT&T gets out of paying Apple a monthly fee if the customer changes phones or plans"
I didn't say change phones or plans, I said replaces phone- lost, stolen, broken. Customer buys a new iPhone, plan doesn't change, but Apple is not receiving payments on two phones, just the single contract. The original phone is not being used thus not incurring any usage charges, only the second phone. Apple doesn't care that the first phone is no longer generating revenue, because the second one is, and Apple has sold two phones, instead of just one. They would love for everyone to lose iPhone and buy another, My point is that we can't model revenue/unit using the assumption that every unit sold is generating monthly revenue. Only units active on an approved carriers' network.
I never said AT&T is letting people out of their contracts, they keep the contract, it's the device that is replaced.
How about all the original iPhone owners upgrading to the 3G? They won't be paying two monthly bills for both phones, the old one is deactivated and their number is moved to the new device which they will pay for service. Those payments are not shared with Apple, unlike the first model was, therefore Apple doesn't receive 24 months of revenue payments on those devices.Yet, Apple receives revenue from selling the new device, plus the upfront subsidy from AT&T. My point is the assumptions for revenue/unit on the original device were not realistic of one assumes that all units sold would actually generate the full 24 months of shared payments. And, in contrast, the new device receives all those payments of the front end since it's subsidized to the consumer.
".....Second, in all of the media reports I've found, the range of monthly revenue from iPhone I has been estimated at between $8 and $18, with $10 the most common estimate by far. I think your $15 estimate is high"
I have generally seen $12-$20, Gene Munster crunched the numbers and backed in to $18/mo. He seems to be the most involved and in-depth analyst on Apple, thus I value his estimates the most. For the sake of conservatism, I used $15/mo since that has been a very common figure tossed around.
",,,,,,I think the subsidy is no more than $240, and most likely about $200. This means the average revenue per phone is more like $435"
If the subsidy were this low, which is more consistent with the industry standard then why did AT&T warn about the effects on its short term EPS outlook? Other subsidies never caused this large of an effect? It's because the iPhone subsidy is much greater. the pricing ranges from 199 to 599 on the 8GB device. That's 400 difference. If a AT&T customer recently received a subsidized phone, he/she pays $399, not $199 because the subsidy must be repaid on the old phone. If one desires a no-contract phone- it's $599.
The new iPhone increases monthly rates by $15 (data plus text) or $360. The original iPhone ARPU was in the mid $90's. whereas the system average was just above $50/month. In addition the exclusivity to sell the phone, or in some countries, just the right to do so is of value.
SUBSIDY Estimates
Pacific Crest (Andy Hargreaves) $350
Oppenheimer (Yair Reiner) $325 + $100 bonus new customers
AmTech (Shaw Wu) $200-400
Morgan Stanley- $550 ASP (~300 subsidy)
Wrote:
"Turley,
Very impressive piece of work. I'm not sure about some of your assumptions, but let's say they're right on target. You say: "Therefore, when evaluating Apple on its prospective cash flows, shares look attractive under $160." Why $160? Is it just because that's about where the stock is today? How about $170, $180? What is it about the FCF that gets you to precisely $160?"
A couple folks commented on the "shares are attractive under $160"
I think some are taking that the wrong way because I wasn't very clear. What I meant was that Apple is cheap right now, "under $160" I said only because of where it was currently trading, not because Apple isn't attractive at $160, 170 ...etc. I think it certainly is.
At what point is AAPL fairly valued? I'm still working on a valuation that breaks down the segment cash flows and accounts for cannibalization plus synergies and halo, so I haven't worked out a more specific number yet, but I general guess would be at least 200, if not 250 or higher. I need to do more analysis but i'll share my thoughts when I finish the model.